Two big open source stories from the UK: not only is retailing behemoth Tesco selling PCs bundled with the Ubuntu operating system but Becta, the government agency responsible for technology in the education system, has reported Microsoft to the Office of Fair Trading for alleged anti-competitive practices.

The latter is an interesting twist in the long-running negotiations between Becta and Microsoft over the cost of software licensing for the UK’s schools and colleges.

While it suggests that Becta is taking a hard-line approach that will result in more adoption of open source software, history suggests that result may not necessarily come to pass, however.

As long ago as May 2005 Becta published a report (PDF) that approved the use of open source software within schools, noting that it could produce total cost savings of 44% per PC for primary schools and 24% per PC for secondary schools.

With Becta’s three-year licensing agreement with Microsoft up for renewal at the start of 2007 the organization began a review designed to analyze the impact of Microsoft’s licensing on schools and consider the potential for alternatives to Windows and Office.

The result was conclusive. Becta found that Microsoft’s education licensing posed “significant potential for institutions to find themselves locked in to Microsoft”, that schools found themselves having to pay for software they could not use, and that Vista and Office 2007 should not be considered for adoption in UK schools.

In the light of these findings it was quite extraordinary that, a week earlier Becta, had signed a 12 month extension to its agreement with Microsoft.

Becta has also been criticized in parliament. In November last year Liberal Democrat MP for Southport, John Pugh, tabled an early day motion criticizing government agencies for preventing open source software.

Becta has previously maintained that suppliers in its framework agreements are free to provide open source software and services. However, the OSC pointed out that despite significant adoption of Moodle, the open source course management system, Becta does not recommend it, and it is therefore not supported by framework suppliers.

While Becta reporting Microsoft to the OFT is on the face of it a significant turning point, those who have followed the negotiations have learned to be skeptical.

As Silicon.com reports:

“Mark Taylor of the Open Source Consortium pressure group said: ‘This is a mini-step in the right direction but what Becta is actually doing is keeping Microsoft in front of the market to the exclusion of alternatives.’ He claimed Becta’s complaint is part of the process of negotiating a new contract for the use of Microsoft technology in schools and will therefore only add to the visibility of Microsoft in the market.”

I’m not sure Microsoft could have or could need any more visibility in the market, but the point about the negotiating process is a good one. I have no doubt that after the OFT complaint is dealt with Becta will sign a new agreement with Microsoft, albeit under revised terms.

What those terms will be remains to be seen, but Microsoft was forced to back down in Norway after similar complaints. That did not result in a pro-open source agenda, but at least meant schools were not forced to pay for Windows licenses for Apple Macs and Linux PCs.

From a UK tax-payer perspective, I think that is the very least Becta should be aiming for. From an open source perspective, it is unfortunately likely that it is just about all that will be delivered.