El uso del software libre en las administraciones públicas de la UE

26proprietary products. In addition, open source meets the needs of firms that cannotdevelop their own software but that have the same needs as some of the customizingfirms. And it also serves those consumers who cannot afford to license proprietaryproducts. Open source thus provides a means to extend the market. Although it doesnot involve the exchange of goods for a positive price, it is an exchange of a softwareproduct for a (sometimes informal) promise to return possible enhancements to thecommunity. That promise comes true frequently enough to sustain participation inopen source development (Bessen 2002, 22).Aunque esta incapacidad del mercado para cubrir necesidadesespecíficas no necesita intervención gubernamental, existe un área endonde la acción gubernamental tiene un impacto directo en elmercado, y es la provisión de software para su propio uso interno.Governments are clearly formulating different policies with different effects. Theconsiderations are necessarily complex. However, I can suggest some simpleguidelines. First, it makes no sense to have procurement policies that discourageconsideration of open source products. Second, most of the costs and benefits of anysoftware purchase arise from the direct costs and benefits of the specific application.For this reason, products should largely be considered on their merits for the projectat hand. Note, however, that when future modifications are important, open sourcemay provide added flexibility, and thus future costs and benefits should be factoredinto the calculation. Also, whether the software is open source or not, systems shouldsupport free, open standards, so that future users need not be “locked in” to aparticular product in order to access the data. Finally, it is true that there might besignificant positive externalities associated with open source—that is, benefits thataccrue to parties other than the decisionmakers. The Chinese and Frenchgovernments appear to take this into account, viewing open source as part of anational “industrial policy” to promote competitiveness in the software industry(Bessen 2002, 25).Si por una parte es absurdo mantener políticas de provisión quedescarten el FLOSS, por otra es arriesgado mantener políticas depatentes que lo amenazan. Bessen explica el cambio que supuso, amediados de los 80, la protección del software por copyright, laprotección que tiene un libro o cualquier producto cultural, a laprotección del software por patentes, la protección propia deproductos industriales. El número de patentes ha ido aumentando, enEstados Unidos, a un promedio de 20.000 por año, con el crecimientoque muestra el gráfico entre 1975 y 1999.