Anson Uy, president of Touch Solutions Inc., local partner of Red Hat said there is a need to 'uncover the truth' behind this strategy. He did not, however, identify which companies in particular are guilty of this practice.
'In the end we believe that the test of time and the credibility of Red Hat will prove its value,' he said in an interview with Computerworld Philippines.He said his company will soon launch its own information campaign about the 'other side' in the competition between proprietary and open-source software vendors.
According to him, competing software vendors are out to discredit open-source by sponsoring studies that highlight flaws of using open-source solutions and pirating open source developers. He noted sponsored studies involving North American companies and North American IT staff aimed at proving that open source would be more expensive over the long term due to 'higher cost of labor.'
'We know that we are a developing country (Philippines) and our labor cost is extremely competitive vis-'-vis our North American counterparts,' Anson said. 'We also know that the license price of software is generally global so what is 'cheap' software for our North American friends may turn out to be more expensive for us.'
'Poaching' expertise
In order to challenge open source, he said private software companies are pirating open source experts. 'A prominent software company has been poaching Red Hat employees across the Asian region and they are being employed to challenge Red Hat,' he reported.
Anson added such action causes confusion and credibility issues on both private software firms and open source companies, making customers wonder which side is telling the truth.
He also expressed doubt on the real intent of a statement issued by the Philippine Software Industry Association (PSIA), urging companies to scrutinize House Bill 5769, which is undergoing hearing in Congress.
The bill seeks to mandate government agencies and state-run schools to use open source solutions instead of proprietary software.
PSIA describes the bill as a 'short-sighted, myopic and a disservice to both users and developers of software.' The group says both users and developers of software should have the freedom of choice as to which technology can best address their unique business needs and requirements.
In response, Anson said they are willing to have a dialogue with PSIA with no intention of challenging the latter's views but 'to learn from their opinion and try to work out something.'