Open Source Software & Libraries

A Look at OSS in 2014

Software development models1. Closed source/proprietary/vendor-created (you cannot

view/troubleshoot/edit the code)2. Free/Open source, community-created (you can

view/troubleshoot/edit the code, contribute your fixes back to the community)

3. Custom, in-house developed, proprietary (the in-house team can view/troubleshoot/edit the code)

OSS / FOSS• Open source software is software that can be freely used, changed,

and shared (in modified or unmodified form) by anyone. Open-source software is developed in a public, collaborative manner.

• “Free software” offers 4 freedoms re: code (use, copy, modify, contribute to)

• No licensing fees for use of free/open-source software

Who does what?Proprietary Open Source Custom, in-house

Core codebase Vendor ($) Community ($0) Self

Optional/add-on Features Vendor ($) Community ($0),3rd party ($), Self (“sweat equity”)

Self, 3rd-party ($)

Documentation Vendor ($),3rd party ($)

Community ($0), 3rd party ($), Self (“sweat equity”),(or some combination)

Self

Support Vendor ($),3rd party ($)

Community ($0), 3rd party ($), Self (“sweat equity”),(or some combination)

Self

Training (inc. user group meetings)

Vendor ($),3rd party ($),Community

Community ($0), 3rd party ($), Self (“sweat equity”),(or some combination)

Self

Implementation/project mgt Vendor ($),3rd party ($)

Community ($0), 3rd party ($), Self (“sweat equity”),(or some combination)

Self

Migration (out) Vendor ($),3rd party ($)

Community ($0), 3rd party ($), Self (“sweat equity”),(or some combination)

Self

Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt (FUD) Loses to Real-World Experience

• Marketing technique designed to counter the threat of F/OSS, used by closed-source software vendors

FUD Myths Proven experience

Proprietary/closed source software is more secure

Open source, generally, is more secure than proprietary

Proprietary/closed source software has better code

Better quality code found in open-source projects (Engard, citing Noyes 12/23/12, “2011 Coverity Scan Open Source Integrity Report: fewer defects/1000 lines of code”)

Proprietary/closed source software is harder to use

Open source can be easy to use, or can be made to be easy to use

Public Sector & F/OSS

• Governments’ commitment - 30% of US federal agencies now use Drupal

“Increasingly, governments are wrestling with the 'how tos' of open source choices; not ‘whether’ to use it.”(Bohannon, 09/04/13 - http://opensource.com/government/13/9/trends-open-source-government-2013)

OSS in Libraries

• Libraries (93% use some form of OSS (top = Mozilla’s Firefox), Engard’s 2010 survey)– ILS (Evergreen, Koha)– Discovery layer (VuFind, Blacklight)– Digital repository (Islandora, Hydra, DSpace)– Web server stack (Apache, Nginx, PHP, Ruby on Rails– Database Management System (Mysql, Postgresql)– Website content management (Wordpress, Drupal)– Operating Systems (Linux)– General Software Applications (OpenOffice, Firefox, GIMP,

Thunderbird, Filezilla)

OSS ILS’ in Libraries

1. ILS Market share up to 14% in 2012 (Brooke, 2013)2. “Evergreen and Koha ILS products have become

mainstream. Both offer features comparable to proprietary products” (Breeding, 2012)

3. Quality/satisfaction – “generally moderate to high satisfaction scores” (Breeding & Yelton, 2011)

4. Contracts for OSS ILS vendors for Evergreen/Koha, 14% of 794 public & academic contracts

OSS ILS in Library Case Studies:$ Savings + End of Vendor Lock-in

• Crowell Public Library in San Marino, CA:– 2010, $60K/year for SirsiDynix Horizon– Switched to a SaaS (Software as a Service) hosted v. of

LibLime Koha for $7K/year• Koha support vendors, for example, just 1 in 2007-

2008 ; up to 9 in 2010 • MassCat (on Koha since 2008) – switched easily

from LibLime to ByWater Solutions for support without having to migrate from one system to another (invisible to patrons)

OSS in Libraries – a “force multiplier”

• IMLS “Empowered by Open Source” grants• King County Library System received this in

2009 for migration III to Evergreen and development of necessary Evergreen components– Additional expenses in development made the tab

for the new system the same as III Millennium– Support costs / ongoing = 70% of III Millennium

costs (Brooke, 2013: 6)

OSS, UX & Digital Literacy

1. User eXperience Design• Closing the usability loop requires ability to fix

code– 1st barrier = access to code– 2nd barrier = coding know-how

2. Digital literacy• Many possible levels of engagement– Develop coding know-how in-house?

Panelists

• Ben Shum, Bibliomation• Jesse Weaver, Bywater Solutions• Dave Bretthauer, Greg Colati, and Michael

Howser, the Connecticut Digital Archive• Sharon Clapp, Elihu Burritt Library, Central

Connecticut State University

Panel Questions:1. Why are libraries going the way of open source catalogs?2. What types of information gets lost while migrating from legacy systems to open-

source?3. What are advantages of going to an open source catalog? What types of features

do these catalogs offer that a legacy system does not?4. How much technical knowledge should an institutions’s staff have?5. How should libraries best interact with vendors regarding technical issues &

requesting fixes? Can the speaker give a programmer perspective on the process?6. Explain test environments (sandboxes) and bug-reporting vs. enhancements7. What types of things are customizable and what things are not?8. Explain your work on discovery layers and what the future holds9. What portion of the librarian or staff member(s) time is spent on the systems? Is

that their sole responsibility in their jobs or do they have other duties? If they do have other duties, how much time do they spend on the system & do they think it’s enough time?

10. What’s required for success in an OSS implementation project (vs. any other project)?