You know where you are when buying computer hardware. You pay out some cash, and you get a little box of tricks. Software, though, is entirely different. Usually, you're not even buying a thing, merely the right to use that thing.

What's more, the rights you're granted are restricted. Thanks to intellectual property laws, the software's inner workings are not to be disclosed or meddled with; you get what you're given, and you like it. And if you don't like it, tough luck.

Software is released under some kind of licence. It may be a very restrictive one that governs precisely how many people may use the software, or how many computers it can be installed upon, or even a date by which the product will cease working and has to be upgraded. As soon as you click 'OK' or 'Next', you've agreed to these rules - whether you read them thoroughly or not.

But other licences exist that are the exact opposite. They may still impose restrictions of sorts, but the boundaries are much further apart. Under these open licences, computer users have the right to peer inside the software, see how it works, and best of all: re-write it to better suit their needs.

This is the central attraction of FLOSS (Free, Libre and Open Source Software). The product you install on your computer is not necessarily what you are forced to use. If there's something about it you'd like to change, you are free to do so.

The second attractive feature of FLOSS is that, in many cases, the software is free. You can use it, tinker with it, and redistribute your tinkered version under the same licence. That's what the open source movement is all about.

And it is a 'movement'. No-one is in charge of open source. No-one provides an advertising budget, there's no press officer or CEO. The people involved are often interested individuals, spending their spare time in front of a computer to help create software that will benefit everyone. This is simultaneously a great strength, and a problematic weakness. For FLOSS to succeed against the global branding and advertising budgets of the big software corporations, it is dependent upon the goodwill of those involved in the movement.

Why does this matter to schools? Well, there's the simple fact of the cost saving involved. Because FLOSS tends to be free, there's an obvious benefit in no longer having to pay licence fees for dozens of computers. But the savings extend further than that.

"Software licences typically account for a small proportion of the cost of ICT provision," says Richard Rothwell, Head of ICT at Handsworth Grammar School in Birmingham, and one of the UK's experts on educational use of FLOSS. "A third of the budget is eaten up by formal support services. Supporting open source is much easier and cheaper than supporting proprietary software, so there's a huge saving to be made."

In May 2005, the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta) released a landmark report highlighting the potential benefits of using FLOSS. Headteachers, lacking training and support, are too often lured by low set-up costs for ICT solutions. Only later do they find that up to 60% of their annual ICT budget will have to be spent on maintaining and upgrading these proprietary systems. Using FLOSS, support costs are halved and hardware needs replacing far less often.

Despite their appeal, the cost savings are not what Rothwell and many other FLOSS supporters see as its biggest strength. The best thing about it, they say, is the ability to change the way software works, and share those changes with others.

Richard Rothwell again: "Imagine you have ten schools trying to put together a learning resource for French lessons. They could spend ten grand each on a commercial product that might do what they want. Or, they could club together and spend two grand collectively, for some bespoke software that does exactly what they need. If that is then released under an open source licence for the rest of the community, it helps even more schools, which can amend and change it for their needs and re-release it."

So, we have software that is cheaper to buy, cheaper and easier to support, and gives old hardware a new lease of life. Why isn't everyone using it already?

There are lots of reasons, according to Seb Bacon of Jamkit, a company that develops websites for charities. One is inertia. "Although they could be saving money they usually can't be bothered. A bit like why people don't switch banks or mortgages," he says.

But there are all sorts of other reasons. Lack of understanding, fear of the unknown, concern that there will be too much to learn.

The true cost of commercial software is often hidden by the cost of buying new hardware, since it is usually provided as part of the package, Bacon adds. What's more, hardware tends to be optimised for use with proprietary software, which makes adapting it to a FLOSS environment more challenging.

"A school with 50 computers can quickly and easily see how much money they're saving. Furthermore they are likely to have a less frequent replacement policy than an individual. Indeed, the savings per computer when running a large network could be as high as £700," he explains.

Overcoming inertia requires teamwork from the FLOSS community. Teresa Dillon, a Learning Researcher at Futurelab, sees the outward presentation of FLOSS as one of the primary difficulties. "Even within the open source community, there are differences of opinion. Consequently there is a greater need for the FLOSS community to effectively communicate the knowledge and understanding it has gained and work in closer collaboration at all levels with policy makers and educators, and vice-versa."

This could take time. Remember, no-one is really in charge. In the meantime, it is down to educational professionals like Richard Rothwell to make the best case they can. Enthusiastic teachers with a keen interest in open source are at the forefront of the movement in the UK - their efforts can inspire others to make similarly informed choices.

Seb Bacon is all in favour: "Effective lobbying needs persuasive arguments. This means working with enthusiastic teachers to set up working proofs-of-concept that can demonstrate the benefits in action, and to highlight the areas that need further investment."

Which is precisely what Richard Rothwell, in his capacity as Chairman of Schoolforge-UK, is trying to bring about. It is a volunteer project that aims to bring some clarity to the FLOSS argument. It's trying to make the same case for open source in schools that a professional (and properly-funded) commercial organisation might make.

Teresa Dillon is confident about the outcome: "Look at Denmark, where the government has made it policy to get schools using open source software. There's also been big strides made in Africa. It's going to be interesting to watch what happens over the next ten years."


Links

British Educational Communication Technology Agency, comprehensive case study on the cost-effectiveness and benefits of FLOSS for schools: www.becta.org.uk/corporate/press_out.cfm?id=4681
Demos, report on the future on the potential of FLOSS focusing on licensing issues, methodologies and implications: www.demos.co.uk/catalogue/wideopen
FLOSS forum in Europe: www.ossite.org
Open Source Initiative (OSI), non-profit corporation dedicated to managing and promoting the Open Source definition: www.opensource.org
Schoolforge-UK, volunteers leading the way: www.schoolforge.org.uk
Schooltool, developing open source school administration software: www.schooltool.org
Open Source Consortium, beginnings of cohesion? www.opensourceconsortium.org
Futurelab open source workshop outcomes: www.futurelab.org.uk/viewpoint/art48.htm