Can this economy support library changes to an
open source software system?
Ken Yuen
LIBR 287 Fall 2009
During
this time of global and national recession and generally poor economy,
libraries must be extra careful with how they budget their money. As of last year the American Library
Association reports branch closings and budget cuts all across the country.
("Branch closings and," 2008)
A possible solution to library budgets woes is open source
software. In addition to open source
software having many characteristics that would fit in well with library
philosophies, open source software are usually free to download and
install. However, just because the
source code is free does not mean that there are not other costs that may be
involved with installing and supporting open source software. There are a lot
of questions about whether it is really financially sound for libraries to
switch from their propriety software over to open source versions.
Benefits of Open Source Software
There
is a lot of reasons for why libraries should want to use open source software.
Open source software (OSS) is different from commercial software in that the
source code is free to use, modify, and redistribute. Just as how libraries have a philosophy of
providing information for free to be used in whatever ways people would like,
open source software allows this continued cycle of using, modifying, tweaking,
and passing on of knowledge in software format.
A lot of library software is propriety software as seen from the 40,000
propriety integrated library systems bought between 2004 and 2007. (Breeding,
2007) This may be due to the poor
visibility of OSS at the time and an slow initial acceptance to OSS. In the same article Breeding mentions that
many librarians are discouraged with the commercial ILS vendors and that
there are complaints about the low level of innovation and the high cost of
automation software. (Breeding, 2007)
Because of the nature of open source, libraries should be able to more
easily customize their software to better match the particular needs of their
patrons. The customer will no longer be
limited to whatever the vendor provides, savvy librarians and technical staff
will be able to fulfill the innovation needs themselves.
Since
it's initially free, libraries can try out an OSS and see if it works with
their system without any sort of commitment.
With propriety software, libraries usually don't get to see the final
product in action until after they've established a contract and had it
installed. So OSS is nice in that
libraries can see what they are getting themselves into before paying licensing
and installation fees to vendors. They
may still need to pay vendors to install basic computer infrastructure too
complex for library staff like networks, hardware, and other computer setup
though. Licensed software can be a
hassle in a lot of other ways, since it requires keeping track of the different
license code for each software. The
technician needs to know which software is available for which computer. Some licensed software requires the use of a
dongle, which takes up a USB slot, otherwise the licensed software won't
work. If something goes wrong, there are
all these questions about whether the license allows the software to be
transferred to a new computer or other limitations. While it's understandable that the license is
just there to protect the software owner's rights and it's a sort of contract,
it just adds a lot of complexity to the system.
A medium to large size library can have anywhere from 20-60 computers
available to the public, so making sure each box has the right software and
right license for it can be a headache for whoever is in charge of the
technical parts of the library. On the
other hand, this complexity is why libraries usually pay a vendor to come in
and handle software installations and issues.
As long as the vendor's company is still running, a library should be
able to expect technical support from them, that's what they pay for. In a rare case, like the one for Alameda Free
Library, sometimes a library may deal with a bad vendor that does things like
mishandle the software licensing, selling the licenses to other people or
providing poor technical support.
Potential Issues with OSS
Despite
all the hype over OSS, there are those who feel that the benefits are not
immediate or obvious enough to warrant the switchover from established
propriety software. Clifford Lynch makes
this comment about integrated library systems: there is a mature, competitive
market in such systems, and I question whether the choice to invest in
developing an open source ILS makes sense given very constrained resources.
(2009) Lynch's statement echoes a
popular idiom that goes along the line of not changing something if there are
no major flaws with it. Libraries may
not be in love with their current software, but at the very least they can say
that they are familiar with it and know how to use it. Recently, there was a 1,779 survey in which
people were asked about their satisfaction with their software and interest in
OSS. A large number of responders
indicated that their libraries might have some interest in open source but that
they lacked the technical staff they felt they needed to adopt this approach.
(Breeding, 2008) So besides financial
hurdles, there are also technical and training issues that need to be
overcome. It seems that education and
and training classes would be the best way to get past these barriers to OSS,
but with libraries already cutting most non-essential programs, it seems
unlikely that libraries will spend the money to put into classes such as this.
Despite
all the appeals of OSS, there are some definite disadvantages to consider. In this economy, even a small blemish may be
the fatal flaw that takes OSS off the table of consideration. Even though OSS is free to install and try,
some open source products, unlike Firefox, are challenging to install.
(Schneider, 2008) Considering libraries
have databases and other things that need configuring, someone on staff would
need the technical knowhow to install and configure OSS. Either that or the library would need to
higher a technician or contract to a company that works with OSS, which
suddenly makes it a lot less free.
Fredericks continues in her article to say free software is certainly appealing, but if the program is
more difficult to install and manage, 'free' loses its luster. (2009) It would require that the tech staff be
well-informed as they continue to support ongoing programs and even if the
software is free funds are still needed for network, hardware, and support
services. (Fredericks, 2009) As seen,
there are costs associated with OSS that exist even if there are no licensing
or maintenance fees. Libraries are
highly dependent on their online catalogs, Internet access, and databases for
their material and patrons. Switching
systems would require being down while the new system is installed, installing
and configuring programs for each of the computers, training staff to use the
new software, and dealing with whatever issues appear when the new system is
being used. Changing software just
because it might potentially be cheaper or more flexible is no light decision.
Right
now, libraries are especially feeling the brunt of the weakened economy. Since
most public libraries are dependent on what's budgeted to their system from
their city or county affiliate. An
example of this is the OskalOSSa Public Library which suffered from the Iowa
state legislature cutting $60 million from local governments. As a result the city budget line item for
library materials was slashed from $47,000 to $1000 (Holland, 2009) The direct consequence of this is the board
voting to cease the RFID tagging program; creating a new philosophy if the
library's operating budget cannot support the fixed operating costs of a
project, it's risky to commit the library to it (Holland, 2009) This conservative new attitude makes it seem
unlikely that this library will make the switch over to open source software. Unless open source software can prove that
its installation and continued operating cost will be less than the previous
system, it'll be a hard sell for this library system. However, despite the grim outlook of this
position, the OskalOSSa system will probably next move from SirsiDynix to a
less expensive integrated library system. (Holland, 2009) If open source software can prove to be
cheaper, then perhaps it will be in the consideration for the change after
all. Finally, there's also the option of
not completely abandoning their current ILS, but merely install an OSS OPAC on
top of their current system. That way
they can have their current system, but the options provided by OSS software as
well.
Examples of OSS Available for Libraries
It
seems like the main focus of OSS for libraries at the moment are for integrated
library systems and online catalog software replacements. For integrated library systems that are OSS
are Koha, Evergreen, Emilda, OpenBiblio, and phpMyLibrary. For online catalogs there are Blacklight,
Helios, SolrMarc, and VuFind. ("Oss
directory," ) Looks like libraries
have quite a few choices for potential OSS for their libraries, showing that
there is an interest among the community for working on and servicing library
OSS. Unfortunately, it appears as if
some of them are updated more frequently than others. Whether its a propriety software or OSS, a
company that goes out of business and ceases working on a project can happen to
any company at any time. The difference
with open source is that some other party may pick up the project and continue
it. That's not quite so easy with closed
source software.
An
example of OSS that libraries can use is Koha, which is a library and
automation software. It was designed by
programmers and librarians who wanted to improve access to materials (Fredericks,
2009) This is appealing for libraries
because they can change the software to make it fit with their system better
without having to pay for a vendor to come out and change it for them. Another appeal of open source software is
that it's freely provided thus the licensing and maintenance fees... in
commercial products aren't an issue. (Fredericks, 2009) On the surface, this seems like it would make
OSS the ideal solution for libraries that are hurting from this economy. Another benefit from OSS is that there tends
to be a community of techies who are behind the software and some companies
that specialize in supporting OSS products if there's no in-house expertise. (Fredericks, 2009) With propriety software, libraries would need
to contact a vendor who would then contact a programmer to make changes or
support to their software, which can be costly in time or money. That's because propriety software is closed and
thus libraries don't have direct access to the source code to make
modifications by themselves. With OSS,
libraries can contract a company to modify their code. However, if the company goes out of business
or the contract expires, the user still have the software code available...
unlike propriety commercial product, users retain the software (Fredericks,
2009). So even if all work stops being
done on the software, the library can chOSSe to modify it in-house using their
own staff or a hired technicians since they possess the original code.
Sometimes
libraries have no choice but to turn to open source software for their needs,
because they cannot afford the expensive commercial versions of software. An example of this is libraries in developing
worlds. Because of bad economic
conditions like the ones in India, many of them opt to use CDS/ISIS or WINISIS
non-profit products from UNESCO. (Kushwah, 2009) However, due to the limitations of those
programs, a lot of them are switching to KOHA, an open source integrated
library system licensed under GNU. (Kushwah, 2009) While both are free, the UNESCO developed
program is closed and thus limited by whatever changes are made by the UNESCO
developers. KOHA works with automated
systems and is compatible with MARC 21.
This has given an option for the libraries to use
ILMS like KOHA instead of storage and retrieval systems like CDS/ISIS without
spending huge money. (Kushwah, 2009) If
it works for a place like India, libraries in the US should be able to find the
resources to use an open source software like KOHA.
OSS as a Money Saving Venture
Another
popular OSS that libraries are adopting is Evergreen. Recently, four county library systems in
South Carolina adopted Evergreen to join a resource sharing network. Apparently
this is financially prudent because Evergreen also allows the consortium to
enjoy immense cost-cutting benefits by sharing a single system (Equinox Software, 2009) With the budget for materials being slashed,
interlibrary loan is a good solution for providing materials that a library
cannot buy presently. While it's
possible to have an interlibrary service without sharing the same system, it is
a lot less efficient. If a bunch of
different library systems use a bunch of different propriety software they may
not be compatible with each other.
They'd have to search the individual libaries' OPACs to see if they have
the item requested, then use some out of system method for keeping track of the
material. If they're all on the same system,
like with Evergreen, they can probably access each other's OPACs. Plus they can use a computer to keep track of
the material because the record is available in the same system.
OSS
provide more than just library related software, there are many OSS versions of
popular propriety software that libraries can use instead. Using the Linux or OpenBSD operating system
can reduce the need to license Windows operating system when purchasing or
upgrading computers. (Houser, 2009)
Operating systems can be one of the most expensive pieces of software to
purchase for a machine and modern libraries like the one where the author works
can have nearly 100 computers. One major
drawback would be that these third party software brands may not be as
compatible as a popular operating system like Windows. Libraries would need to decide if this is a
major issue (some libraries limit the patrons access to a set amount of
software anyway) and if their staff or technical department is comfortable with
working with a non-Windows operating system.
Houser also suggests replacing Microsoft Office with the OSS
OpenOffice.org. (2009) For a small
business, Microsoft lists its price at $449.95 so finding an alternative that
is functionally identical, free, and easy to install like OpenOffice can be be
a real budget saver. House claims that
the savings from licensing by itself can save hundreds, thousands, or tens of
thousands of dollars, depending on the size of the library. (2009) If the software is seemingly functional identical
and free, there seems to be little case against arguing going for the OSS
version. Many people use the Firefox
Internet Browser program over the propriety program Internet Explorer from
Microsoft for instance. Not all OSS are
as well-known or popular as Firefox, but it is an example of how successful an
OSS can be.
Even
in this tight economy, there are still libraries receiving grants which can be
used to pursue OSS. On October 15,
LYRASIS has been awarded a grant of $192,000 by the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation to plan a support service for assisting libraries with the adoption
and use of open source software and systems.(Lyrasis, 2009) Even if the
software package is free, OSS still takes resources like time and money to set
up. Having a nonprofit like LYRASIS
specialize in providing this service to libraries is a great first step for
overcoming the initial barriers to OSS installation. While this may not be enough money to cover
cost of continued maintenance, the grant will provide LYRASIS with consulting
expertise and dedicated staff resources over a six-month period to assess
library needs in depth...(Lyrasis, 2009)
Six months may not seem like much, but it seems like the major
inhibition for using OSS is the initial fears and actual conversion from a
proprietary system to an OSS system. If
a library system can get setup with some OSS, as long as the software is
adequately working, it doesn't seem likely that the maintenance costs will be
as high as hiring a vendor for proprietary software and paying for those
licensing fees.
Community
is an important factor in OSS and finding software with a good community behind
it can be a cost saving measure. If the
free support is good, libraries won't have to pay for a specialized technician
to make changes for their software.
VuFind is a good example of an OSS online catalog that has community
support. If one goes to there webpage at
http://vufind.org/ one can click on the documentation to read instructions for installing
the software. Clicking on the Support
link brings up mailing lists where people can gather and talk about
issues. On the right there's a link to
an Issue Tracker where issues are reported.
If someone has an issue with the software, they can go to that link and
see if it's known or even resolved already.
The project summary says that 40 percent of the issues are still open
while 57 percent are resolved or closed. ("Vufind issue management,"
) So while the problem solving is still ongoing, at least there are signs that
the issues that people bring up are being addressed. There is even a wish list link for people to
request new features for the program. So
while OSS may not have a contract that one can point at to demand individual
service from a vendor, there are still people out there on the Internet who can
provide varying degrees of information and technical support for free. At any rate, if there is a strong technical
community backing the open source software, even non-technical staff should be
able to follow the instructions or ask for help to fix problems with the
software.
While
it will vary depending on the software type and factors like cost and community
support, financially libraries should be able to switch from their propriety software
brands to OSS versions. There are
options like grants and working through the software using online help for
technical guidance. Plus with more
libraries switching to OSS, it would not be hard to simply request the source
code from a library system that has had previous success with their open source
software. Inheriting whatever useful
modifications the previous library system had made to their OSS is one of the
advantages to the software code being open.
In some cases, OSS may be a way of cutting costs by dropping the
licensing and vendor fees that are associated with propriety software. There are also OSS that can play a
functionally identical role as expensive propriety software like Microsoft
Office, Windows, and Internet Explorer.
Using the OSS versions of these software can relieve the library of the
licensing fees associated with keeping them and upgrading them. OSS just gives libraries more software
options, many of which are cost-saving advantages in this economy.
References
(n.d.). Oss
directory. Retrieved from http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/ILS (accessed Nov. 4, 2009)
(n.d.). Vufind
issue management. Retrieved from http://vufind.org/jira/browse/VUFIND (accessed Nov. 3, 2009)
American Library Association. Branch closings and budget cuts threaten
libraries nationwide. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2008/november2008/branchesthreatened.cfm
(accessed Oct. 31, 2009)
Breeding, M. (2007). An Update on open source
ils. Computers in Libraries, 27(3),
27-30.
Breeding, M. (2008). Making a business case for
open source ils. Computers in Libraries,
28(3), 36-39.
Equinox Software, Initials. (2009, October 27).
Sc lends welcomes four new library
systems live on evergreen. Retrieved from http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=14332 (accessed Nov. 1, 2009)
Fredericks, K. (2009). No strings attached:
open source solutions. School Library
Media Activities Monthly, 25(10), 42-43.
Holland, S. (2009). No easy targets six
libraries in the economy's dark days. Public
Libraries, 48(4), 27-38.
Houser, J. (2009). Open sources public
workstations in libraries. Library
Technology Reports, 45(3), 5-38.
Kushwah, S. (2009). Migration from cds / isis
to koha: a case study of data conversion from ccf to marc 21. International Cataloguing and Bibliographic
Control, 38(1), 6-10.
Lynch, C. (2009, October 30). Clifford lynch clarifies views relative to
open source ils efforts. Retrieved from http://www.librarytechnology.org/
(accessed Oct. 31, 2009)
Lyrasis, Initials. (2009, October 15). Lyrasis awarded an andrew w. mellon
foundation grant for open source support initiatives. Retrieved from
http://www.librarytechnology.org/diglib-fulldisplay.pl?SID=20091101108734130&RC=14313&code=pr&Row=19 (accessed Nov. 1, 2009)
Schneider, K. (2008). Free for all. School Library Journal, 54(8), 44-46.