Open Source vs. Proprietary Software in LIS

OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE AND ALTERNATIVES 1

Open Source Software and Alternative Technologies for Libraries:

A Research Analysis of Koha’s Open Source Software

Faylene J. Keep

San Jose State University

Author Note

Faylene J. Keep, School of Library and Information Science, San Jose State University

Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Faylene J. Keep, School of

Library and Information Science, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192. Email:

[email protected]


Abstract

This research paper is focused on open source software, specifically Koha and how it can be

applied in our libraries. The review of the literature contains refereed academic and journal

articles as well as some references from other respected resources about open source software

and its applications in regards to library communities who contribute to advancing the software.

Included in this research are the open source software requirements, the different types of

software, and alternatives such as cloud technology and consortium purchasing. Although there

is a high amount of interest in the applications of open source software in the library community,

surprisingly there are not many that have actually implemented open source software. While

many libraries have embraced and utilized social media they have not quite been willing to

implement the open source software format in their library organization. There are legitimate

fears; the relevant high costs include the psychological factors, time, and the initial startup that

brings uncertainty. The loyalties to proprietary software are firmly entrenched. This paper

contains additional research that will provide relevant information in regards to open source

software as well as the community motivations that contributes to bettering the software through

the common goals of collaboration and informational freedom.

Keywords: Koha, Open Source software, libraries, community collaboration, consortia,

cloud computing, proprietary software


Open Source Software and Alternative Technologies for Libraries:

Research Analysis of Koha’s Open Source Software

There are libraries that show interest and believe open source has potential. The majority

of libraries are not willing to implement open source software and the possible long-term

benefits it could provide libraries. It seems that the fear of the unknown such as cost, time,

reliability, and lack of knowledge have been a prevalent quandary amongst most libraries. In this

research paper I will explore and focus on the many facets of open source software, specifically

Koha’s open source software platform. The interest for open source software has continued to be

less than enthusiastic amongst library organizations, but some library organizations have

implemented open source software with great success, and others have had less than stellar

results and reverted by to the proprietary software they had used previously. But in most cases it

was due to poor project management, lack of training, and vendor issues. The same scenario has

played out with proprietary software as well. The psychological factors of the unknown equate to

the uncertainty of possible failures. Open source software may be too deemed risky, and libraries

have an inclination to remain neutral and or have a wait of see attitude of complacency, in this

research paper I will provide refereed research about the differences between software platforms,

as well as explore what libraries value in proprietary software. I will research open source

software and whether or not it is overrated and how it is perceived in the library information

sciences. What are the motivations of the open source community and does it align with our

ethics and values? I will include research about whether open source software is really free, and

if it is not free, what are the possible ramifications of the concept of open source’s communities?

How does proprietary software differ from open source software? I will also focus on Koha’s

open source software platform and the role it has played in library open source software


development. Finally I will briefly touch upon other alternatives to open source software,

hybrids, cloud computing, and consortiums (buying associations). This paper will examine these

questions and explore the articles regarding open source software and libraries. The

psychological and surveyed opinions were/are negative and positive, but somewhere in between

both sides are bias to their preference, it boils down to is the uncertainty of the unknown.

Paradoxically libraries embrace social networking which is a form of open source software.

Web 2.0 according to Rubin (2010) has provided libraries way to share social platforms through

“text, audio, and video.” Web 2.0 encompasses many forms of social networking; the most

recognizable platforms are Facebook, LinkedIn, blogs, wikis, and RSS feeds.

Reviewing the literature of the older articles indicates there had been more focus on the

failures, but the more recent articles provides evidence that there is more acceptance of open

source software (OSS). The problem is there seems to be a prevailing inability to trust or

unwillingness to change to an open source software format due to the fear of the unknown. The

common opinions have been a wait and see what happens as oppose to being innovative and

contributing in regards to our own technology needs that service a wide variety of library

functions. Rubin (2010) describes open source initiatives as an inclusive community with a

common purpose in which people or groups “advance, transform, improve software and source

code” that is relatively low-cost or free compared to proprietary software. Although the literature

indicates that open source is gaining popularity the majority of libraries still are reluctant

implementing open source software. Dorman (2002) believes that open source is more attuned to

library values and the movement is far more ethical and technical providing a strong foundation.

Puckett (2012) believes that due to the “collaborative nature of both libraries and open source


software the shared values and goals of both communities are better suited for each other as

oppose to copyrighted licensed software.”

Salve, Lihitkar, S.R., and Lihitkar, R. (2012) writes that there are four types of software,

proprietary, shareware, freeware, and open source. Libraries favor proprietary software such as

Voyager, Polaris, and Innovative software products. Boulanger (2005) writes that proprietary

software is licensed and the owner has exclusive copyright of that source code in which there are

conditions of use, no modification are allowed, restricted usage, no access or inspection of the

source code. Proprietary software development usually utilizes what is referred to as the

waterfall model one; this process includes five stages according to (Boulanger, 2005).

1. “The requirements phase, in which the problem and the requirements of the proposed

system are defined.”

2. “The system and software design phase, in which a technical solution is applied to the

problem.”

3. “The implementation and unit-testing phase, in which the components of the technical

solution are developed and individually tested.”

4. “The integration and system-testing phase, in which all of the individual components

are aggregated and tested as a whole unit and compared to the defined requirements.”

5. “The support and maintenance phase, which begins when the tested system, having

met the defined requirements, is deployed and maintained.”

Each phase is looped until the bugs are out, and continuum testing is utilized throughout the

process, even if that means going back to the beginning phases. The developer provides the

feedback loop and the programmers find the solution to the problem, during this process, testing

is ongoing as is the feedback loop according to (Boulanger, 2005). (Salve, Lihitkar, S.R., &


Lihitkar, R., 2012) writes that shareware allows the user to download it for free to test the

product, many software companies provide shareware, usually there are time or usage limits on

the trial, or a feature(s) is/are disabled so you cannot fully access all of the options the software

has to offer, you have no control, no access to the source code, no modifications are allowed, and

there is no collaboration. Shareware falls under the category of proprietary software. Freeware

can be downloaded, used and copied without restrictions, you still have no access to the source

code, you have no community, no development, and no improvements are possible by the user,

and again this is proprietary software that is usually given to non-profits or through deals with

consortiums. Open source software is referred to as FOSS (Free Open Source) or OSS (Open

Source Software), FLOSS (Free Library Open Source Software) has no restrictions, you are

allowed to modify and improve the source code. The GNU or GLU is relatively easy to apply for

(there are restrictions attached to the licensing), the code is mature and has been around since

1985, many programmers believe it is more reliable, performs better, offers more security, and

the costs are reduced over the long term according to (Salve, et al., 2012). Open source software

allows for customization, yet it requires knowledge of programming, extra effort to customize,

and skills in project and enterprise wide management, as well as a rather large investment for an

unknown and in some sense unproven software, this point is debatable as more libraries turn to

open source software, due to previous issues with proprietary software, or out of necessity due to

budgetary concerns, or they simply are aligned with the values of the open source software

community.

Proprietary software provides comfort and reliability. The learning curves often times are

shorter due to the tutorials, books on the software, and customer support/service. The data

suggests that libraries, archives, and other information science institutions value customer


support as oppose to the actual performance of the software according to (Breeding and Yelton,

2011, Chapter 4).When Breeding and Yelton in 2010 released their study that encompassed four

years of surveys in regards to ILS (Integrated Library System) software they were a bit perplexed

with the results, specifically the satisfaction of vendor software’s customer service/customer

support as oppose to the capabilities/operability of the software. Although costs of the current

systems were of concern, exceeding budgets in most cases, few were willing to abandon their

vendors, and the loyalty rates had risen. However the smaller libraries were satisfied with the

service and capabilities, yet the larger libraries were more satisfied with the customer

service/customer support, but there were issues with the overall software’s capabilities, the data

findings suggest there is a disconnect of the actual software’s capabilities/operability, therefore

the benchmarking expectations were low. Consequently vendors have no motivation to improve

their software according to (Breeding & Yelton, 2011, Chapter 4). Library software is a niche

market without a lot of competition; they can set their own costs, and apply their own timelines

in regards to improvements. I believe it is counterintuitive to judge any software based upon

comfort as oppose to its actual capability, usability, and function. Breeding and Yelton’s survey

also revealed that in 2010 only twenty-one percent of the libraries were shopping around for new

vendors. Although the study revealed that the customer service/support and the ease of use of the

software are by far the most important factors, one would have to question why this would be

acceptable. If you look at other industries and corporations outside libraries; there is an abundant

of competition and benchmarking in regards to proprietary software to meet other

industry/organizational standards. The study further reinforces the need to explore and contribute

to open source software as way to circumvent sub-standard programming. The general

underwhelming expectations of many libraries provides no motivation to create and make


available improved proprietary software, nor will the developers be encouraged to design a

product that is innovative and an intuitive ILS software platform. There are proprietary software

companies that are utilizing user support, claiming they have the similar values of the open

source community, but the majority of the benefits go the company. LibLime claims to be open

source software, but is proprietary software and a subscription platform, and Polaris ILS has user

group enhancement with the acronym of PUG (Polaris Users Group) which seems a bit of

dichotomy since it is propriety software, yet the only benefit the group receives is improved

software that has been tweaked by the PUG members. Polaris is receiving the benefits from those

very people they charge for their proprietary software. The peculiar part of the PUG are the $100

annual dues you must pay to participate in PUG according to Polaris Users Group’s website

(2012 August 31). Proprietary and open source software can be outsourced to independent

companies that specialize in that particular software platform according to Salve, Lihitkar, S.R.,

and Lihitkar, R. (2012). Another reason to consider open source software is that proprietary

software is costly and creates user dependence on the developer, the high costs are due to the

initial purchase, installation, maintenance, reconfigurations of the updates, the software is not

customable, one size fits all, and you have no say in regards to modifications according to Wang

(2011). One could argue that the software you buy, you own, but that is not necessarily true, you

have license to use the proprietary software or technology, but you never truly own it, you have

no say in updates and how the software is reconfigured, or how quickly the software you just

bought becomes outdated and of little use, you will continue to have to pay for the updated

versions. The additional cost factors include staff training, vendor’s technician, or an outside

vendor company which will only add to the cumulative costs over time as well as being locked-

in with a long-term contract. I believe proprietary software never pays for itself; Microsoft does


this quite often with their software programs in which the consumer is eventually required to buy

their updated versions when enough people start implementing the updated software out of

necessity. There are always the additional added costs of the learning curve and reconfiguration

of the software, in regards to new software updates. For profit corporations may offer certain

perks to non-profit institutions like iPads, laptops, or free software but the cost is always paid

ten-folds in their software licensing fees, nothing is ever free and no one truly owns proprietary

software technology and the benefits may compensate for the negatives.

Rubin (2010) believes that the open source initiative offers many benefits; especially due

to the high costs of proprietary software and believes it will take “some time to assess the

potential.” I believe the potential for open source software is already there and libraries should

advocate more on its behalf due to the values that are so similar to our own. Colford (2009)

believes that the LIS students he teaches understand compiled language with more ease versus a

scripting language. Koha, Evergreen, Drupal, Kuali, and other open source software ILS are only

being utilized by libraries like the Georgia Public Library System, King County Library System,

as well as other larger libraries, but smaller institutions or countries that may not have significant

funding have turned to open source due to the cost effectiveness and the availability. Numerous

government agencies have already implemented and supported open source with great success

such as USPS’s (United States Postal Service) track and confirm system and over one hundred-

fifty federal websites are now operating on Drupal opens source software according to Lipowicz

(2012). Higher educational institutions as well non-profit businesses have turned to open source

software due the lower costs and the stability of the source code as well as aligning with the

values, reliability and preference throughout the world according to Silver (2010). I believe that

the open source software communities are more vested with common goals without having to be

OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE AND ALTERNATIVES

10

locked-in a long term contract and charged a substantial amount of money; therefore the gains

would have more of an altruistic sense of accomplishment. Proprietary software has high costs

with no customization abilities, but offers safe and reliable peace of mind.

Open Source Software has had problems throughout its history. But the open source

software (OSS) allows for individual and community customization to meet the needs of

librarians and staff. The schema and code design uses object oriented programming (OOP)

according to Schneider (2008/2009). Open Source Software ranges from “superior, industrial-

strength, ever-adapting programs such as Firefox, Linux, and Apache to GIAG (Guy in Garage

software), badly written and maintained programs.” But there are some key players now in

regards to OSS programs. The OSS community members and contributors are from all over the

world with their own unique perspectives and talents. Members volunteer time and expertise by

the thousands to help develop better source code. The motivations for OSS contributors were

how creative a person feels, intellectual stimulation, and improving their programming skills, the

majority of our respondents are skilled and experienced professionals working in IT-related jobs

according to Lakhaini and Wolf (2005). Bagozzi and Dholokia (2006) believe that the OSS

community “encompasses consciousness of kind in which novice and expert members feel an

inherent connection and a collective sense of separation from nonmembers.” The OSS

community has had an "us versus them" and is prevalent in OSS community-driven enrollment

campaigns, such as those for Mozilla Firefox according to Krishnamurthy (2005), this “sentiment

against firms selling proprietary software among members of many OSS projects.” Particularly

“Microsoft” and the anti-trusts laws they have broken numerous times in other countries. Cassell

(2008) did a survey of four European cities and the reasons they chose a FOSS format were

independence, greater effectiveness, financial savings, establishing a standard format, economic


11

development, inter-governmental competition, security, expert driven, organizational change,

and transparency. Libraries, archives, and museums that volunteer in the OSS development

community will help facilitate and evolve the process of the software which will benefit and

further enhance open source software’s capabilities that proprietary software lacks. Because open

source software is about collaboration and the surveys suggest that most of open source software

contributors are from North America and Europe, the common perception is that most of the

contributors are from third world countries, which is simply not the case. If more librarians

contributed to OSS we could and would improve it to our needs and as well as reinforcing an

improved code evolution according to (Schneider, 2008/2009).

Cassell (2008) writes that there is a misunderstanding that OSS is public domain and

therefore it is free without strings attached, which is not necessarily true. There are some free

source codes that are public domain such as the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol

(TCP/IP), which provides interoperability with other systems. But FOSS software is not public

domain; it imposes legal conditions through licensing. FOSS users must agree to conditions

"copyleft or non-copyleft" according to (Cassell, 2008). Programs with copyleft protection is

when the users agree if they modify the code and redistribute it, they must relicense the new

version of source code, this is GNU or GPL (General Public License) according to Mustonen

(2003). An example of this arrangement is GNU/Linux operating system. Other types of FOSS

use a license that does not impose the condition of subsequent licensing. Non-copyleft is when

someone can download the software, modify it, and then sell the modification as proprietary an

example of this is the Apache web server (Mustonen, 2003). FOSS is essentially software that is

free in the sense that you have the freedom to examine, modify, and share it with others, Perens

(1997) states that Foss is likened to "Free as in free speech not as in free beer.” Later in this


12

paper I will provide an example of why licensing and trademarking needs to be established in

open source communities, my example will be Koha vs. LibLime, and the current trademark and

licensing disagreement.

Yang and Hoffman (2010) did a comparative study on the OPACs of Koha, Evergreen,

and Voyager which focused on ten features that the next generation library catalogs should

encompass, there specifications were to have a single point of entry, state-of-the art intuitive

search comparable to Google and Amazon, enriched content, faceted navigation, simple keyword

searching box, relevancy and ranking, spell checker or term recommender, recommendations and

related materials, user contributions such as ratings, reviews, comments, and social tagging, and

lastly RSS feeds. Koha met six out of ten requirements, Evergreen met four out of ten, and

Voyager by ExLibris met three out of the ten requirements for the next generation library catalog

OPAC. In Yang and Hoffman’s, 2010 study in which they were surveying and compiling

comparisons with Koha 3.0 (since then Koha has been revised to 3.10.0 additional security

patches and improvements have been applied), Evergreen, and Voyager. Koha 3.0 was able to

meet fifty percent of the single entry requirement, state-of-art web interface, provide enriched

content, utilized faceted navigation, was able to do keyword searches, fifty percent capacity of

“did you mean?” , allow user contributions, and RSS Feeds according to the comparative results

provided by (Yang & Hoffman, 2010). Open source software (OSS) provides libraries an

opportunity to customize and add features that proprietary software does not, OSS outperforms

and is far more customizable then software that you have no legal access to do any necessary

tweaking, nor does it seem it has the capability to perform on the same level. This example

provides another reason for why librarians should step out of their comfort zone and look at the

alternatives and potential financial savings that could be applied elsewhere in the library.


13

Open source software (OSS) products like Koha, Drupal, and Kuali has provided a reason

why a library should consider the switch which is the ability to customize and save money long-

term, but the psychological reasons are not there, why should they change? The first reason not

to change is that the majority of libraries utilize similar programs, they want it for the comfort or

perceived reliability and are familiar with the software and there is no learning curve, as well

having access in which they perceive as excellent customer service according to (Breeding and

Yelton, 2011, Chapter 4). The caveats as with any new system are the costs of implementation,

training, and customization of the codes and how you want your system to perform according to

(Breeding and Yelton, 2011, Chapter 2). This is no easy task, and many of the new versions of

open source software are still in the beta testing stages, not quite there, but almost ready

according to Rapp (2011).Yang and Hoffman (2010) believe that libraries should consider the

costs of installing new software whether it is open source software or proprietary, as well time

and training, overall investment, and libraries need to contemplate whether open source software

can work within their system throughout their library. The goals of OSS are about furthering the

software and actively writing programs and no software is one size fits all whether it is propriety

or open source software according to (Breeding & Yelton, 2011, Chapter 3).

Proprietary and open source software (OSS) have similar drawbacks; there is the learning

curve, configurations, time, cost, project management, contracting with a vendor or the process

of installing the software in house within the library, and the training OSS entails. Although

proprietary software has similar issues, the costs overtime in regards to OSS would be

significantly less. Another problem is during the learning curve OSS can look a bit clunky and

dated, but with the right programming and adding in additional modules or other OSS sources

the CMS format will often be comparable to proprietary software, if not better. The sometimes


14

muddled, poorly documented, “developer-centric world of open source development,” for all its

foibles (endemic or otherwise), it is a healthy improvement on the “learned helplessness” of the

last two decades” according to Schneider (2008/2009). I agree with many of her points in regards

to the potential and proven results OSS has made monumental strides, more so than proprietary

software. Boulanger (2005) writes that there has been an argument on both sides about the

security and reliability of FOSS and proprietary software which has been up for debate and the

two specific issues are the availability of the source code and the defects from so many

contributors. Reports have been funded by proprietary software companies which claimed that

FOSS poses security risks. This implied that proprietary source code was safer due to the fact

that it is closed, therefore safe. That is not the case due to the fact that proprietary source code

had been leaked as well as hackers can find vulnerabilities and they have the tools needed to

exploit defects. Boulanger also reports that there are copies of source code for most major

operating systems in the hacker community and it’s attainable through the World Wide Web.

Furthermore there are two groups that know the source code, the small group of developers and

the large group of hackers that are motivated to discover and exploit the vulnerabilities. But

FOSS is not immune and have had problems of worms (infected), the first one effected 6,000 of

60,000 systems. Word quickly spread and the FOSS community patched and “mitigated the

threat” due to the large community and a high level of efficiency, and patches are made public

quickly and succinctly according to (Boulanger, 2005). The Fuzz report revisited re-tested the

proprietary system’s failure rate which was18-23 percent, the FOSS system’s failure rate for the

Linux utilities was second lowest at 9 percent failure’s rate, and the failure rate for GNU utilities

was the lowest at 6 percent according to Miller, B. et al. (1995 October).


15

Koha is based upon modules that are capable of being utilized throughout the entire

library and it incorporates CMS (Content Management System) technology; the main modules

include circulation, cataloging, OPAC, acquisitions, serials, resources, patron management,

branch relationships, reporting, and the authorities, it has been translated in 62 languages and

there has been over a thousand known installations according to Open Network Libraries (2012).

Dennison and Lewis (2011) implemented Koha OPAC in a short time period with relative ease

and feel the usability exceeds the proprietary ILS software. Koha utilizes an integrated library

system (ILS) that is fully functional in all aspects of library services. Molyneux (2011) relates

the meaning of Koha which is “gift” in the Maori language in the country of New Zealand. The

newest version of Koha 3.10.0 will not run on Windows, but will work on Linux or Linux related

platforms. Koha does not require vendor lock-in and the support options are free and/or paid

utilizing various service vendors to choose from that specialize in Koha’s ILS software

according to the Koha’s website (2012). Koha was developed in 1999 by Kaipo Communications

for the Horowhenua Library Trust, in effort to save costs, it began commercial support and

outside vendor options in the year 2000, but it is free to download and has a strong open source

community that contributes to the source code according to Koha (2012).

Koha’s requirements are Linux, UNIX, or MacOS platform and it is fully web-based

which they recommend Debian Squeeze server or other Linux related servers. According to

(ONL, 2012) you have the capability to create a “new physical machine or create a virtual server

on an existing machine or in the cloud.” If you choose to utilize virtual technologies such as a

cloud service you could save time and money on installing a new operating system. In addition

you will need to include MySQL, Zebra, or Apache (Perl), a Root Access to the server and the

user must have a reasonable comfort level with command line and database administration. If the


16

library wants to utilize emailing capabilities they will need to install a MTA (Message Transfer

Agent) such as Postfix or exin4, the default in the module works, but it is less flexible. The

current program is 3.10.0 Koha and uses a Template Toolkit extensible template processing

system which is also open source software, and Koha (2012) recommends Firefox web developer

toolbar.

Koha (2012) has a robust community, but there is a trademark issue between Koha and

Koha PTFS (Progressive Technology Federal Systems, Inc.)|LibLime an American company has

decided to trademark and sell proprietary software using the original coding of 3.0.2 referred to

as the “Harley Code” and was granted trademark status in New Zealand and the United States for

the words Koha, LibLime, and the Koha logo trademark. This has caused a rift between the

community of Koha.org and Koha LibLime. Koha.org has been granted trademark status as of

January 18, 2012, and other parties are allowed to use the name or refer to the name Koha if they

make it clear that they are not part of the Horowhenua Library Trust, they just have to utilize a

disclaimer in their website. You are allowed to use Koha in the description of your website,

product, business, or service. If you would like to use Koha in your logo you must contact them

and they will consider all requests. LibLime (2011) was granted provisional use of the Koha

trademark in New Zealand to the ILS part of their software package; they agreed to transfer the

trademark back to Koha which they now hold in trust, Koha LibLime has yet to give it back,

though they state otherwise on their website. Several thousand dollars were donated to Koha and

an attorney agreed to work pro bono in order to repeal the trademark in New Zealand according

to Koha (2012). LibLime also trademarked the name Koha in the United States. The coding

LibLime has trademarked is comprised of fifty percent of the Harley code and the other source

code is LibLime’s own coding. They sell subscriptions and have released many versions of


17

LibLime software with the Koha™ representing each software program. Koha LibLime (2012)

has now partnered with Syndetics Solutions, Amazon, Google Books, Baker and Taylor Content,

Ingram, 3M, ITG, TALKINGTech, Unique Management Systems, Bilioteca, OverDrive, EZ

proxy, EnvisionWare, and their strategic partners is WALDCO (Westchester Academic Library

Directors’ Organization). The software they are now selling as LibLime Academics Koha and

are now more a proprietary software hybrid, yet Koha LibLime advertise and states in their

website that they are an open source software and community, this is not completely factual. In

fact I would say that is a misrepresentation, and due to the Google search engine and ranking

system, if one did not know what to look for, you may assume that the Koha LibLime’s website

is the Koha organization. I believe that Koha LibLime overstepped their boundaries, and this

provides an example of why trademarking a name, registering, and licensing needs to be done,

even in the OSS community in order to protect the community as a whole, there will always be a

few that will muck up the waters for personal gain whether financially or they simply believed

they deserved the accolades and recognition.

Libraries and higher education institutions have been utilizing library consortiums

(association purchasing power) in which they are able to purchase database subscription access,

vendor suppliers, and serials, but now they include software consortium purchasing power which

provide access featuring proprietary technology through their cloud services, such as

TheQuilt.net and Internet2. Wheeler and Hilton (2012) provide an outline of the differences

between consortiums/buying clubs versus collaborative community sources. Consortiums are

influenced by corporation’s software, technology, and databases such as JSTOR, Internet2Net+,

and The Quilt.net for cloud broadband access and storage, they support Google Apps, Oracle, or

Microsoft and it is a marketplace model. Collaborative community source is motivated by


18

building a community and therefore they are supported by Koha, Dspace, Fedora, and Kuali in

which they are influenced by Apache, Drupal, and Moodle. Both offer different ways to

circumvent the costs of buying and installing proprietary software. Consortiums can offer an

alternative resource for libraries that are feeling the financial strain and yet still have access to a

variety of technology without stepping out of their comfort zone too much. Examples of library

consortiums are comprised of individual states that combine all their publically funded libraries

and provide consortium services. State consortiums includes publicly funded libraries such as

academic, school, and public libraries, multiple states consortiums, or international consortiums

that partnered up to obtain the best prices for multiple services and vendor goods. Pan and Fong

(2010) believe that consortiums offer savings through buying power and negotiation, member

advocacy, and community building. On the other hand smaller libraries may not be able to

afford, want, or need a consortia due to shrinking budgets, which then takes money away from

other necessary services and one size does not fit all needs.

There are legitimate concerns in regards to migrating your hardware and software to the

cloud according to Schiller (2009); the two biggest concerns are security breaches and not having

access to your software when there is glitch. An example would be Amazon’s EC2 Services in

which The Quilt.net utilizes as their choice for cloud storage, in 2011 Amazon EC2 (Elastic

Computer Cloud) had “experienced a prolonged outage due to an incorrect maintenance,”

although it affected many companies, one of their biggest customers Netflix did not experience

any problems that day, due to the fact that they had backup servers in place and wrote a program

to circumvent a shutdown according to (Schiller, 2009). Corrado and Moulaison (2012) believe

that the cloud from a “technological and access standpoint the majority of what a library does

could be done in the cloud, freeing librarians” perhaps delegating the mundane tasks of IT to a


19

cloud service. This could be helpful for the libraries that can afford to do so, but again one size

does not fit all the needs of an individual library. Libraries will need to do their research and

weigh the possible pros and cons of cloud computing. Denis and Mang (2012) believe the

advantages of using Amazon’s cloud services are the flexibility and ease of uploading and

reconfiguring software without significant interruptions or downtime. Amazon offers auto

scaling and Elastic Load Balancing services. Yang (2011) believes that the cloud can offer an

alternative that can deliver both software and hardware, in the beginning the cloud seems to be

lower in costs initially, but over the long run the costs will be higher as oppose to owning your

own server outright. An example of cloud computing we utilize as students are Google Docs for

classroom collaboration. For most libraries the idea of giving up control of your server and

software through virtual computing and at times slow internet connection which can or will

reinforce the negativities associated with the idea of cloud technology, especially in regards to

security and patron privacy concerns according to Julisch and Hall (2010). Ideally if an

organization were to consider cloud computing they would do the necessary research, have back

up servers in place, and would not overly rely on the cloud and utilize it for their software

application that does not require multiple logins are time spent, due to the subscriptions costs

based upon the minute. Libraries could utilize a hybrid cloud system, or if warranted build their

own private cloud system according to (Denis & Mang, 2012).

I believe that open source software and its applications in libraries will remain a viable

option that should be explored and seriously considered as a long term investment and cost

saving measure. Another alternative is a combination of open source and proprietary software

through consortiums that have access to cloud services, with the utilization of back up servers in

case of technical difficulties. Linux servers are far less costly then Window servers and a


20

combination of a new Linux model and older Window model could save libraries quite a bit of

money in the long run. Future studies of library open source and proprietary software needs to be

done, specifically in the psychological motives, questions need to asked, what needs to be

developed in both open source and proprietary software in order to improve and benchmark its

capabilities. Improvements need to be implemented, if proprietary software is not motivated

perhaps open source software can provide the motivation needed to bring costs down and make

proprietary software more affordable. Utilizing a hybrid of open source and proprietary software,

and cloud computing may provide cost saving alternatives. A hybrid format is another alternative

for libraries that may not have the knowledge base or funding to explore open source software as

its only software option. The open source software and community movement is gaining

momentum and is quickly becoming the dominant technology behind the Internet. As open

source software technologies continue to gain market share, proprietary software publishers will

be forced to innovate to remain competitive and survive, but it would be more interesting to

participate by being proactive in open source software. Open source software and community

provides the innovation and capability/operability needed, as we see our budgets decrease and

funding disappear, we lament over the high cost of technology, yet we continue to ignore the

potential of open source software and rely solely on the mediocrity of proprietary software.


21

References

Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholokia, U.M. (2006). Open source software user communities: A study of

participation in Linux user groups. Management Science 52(7), 1099-1115

Balnaves, E. (2008). Open source library management systems: A multidimensional

evaluation. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 39(1), 1-13.

Boulanger, A. (2005). Open-source versus proprietary software: Is one more reliable and secure

than the other? IBM Systems Journal, 44(2), 239-248.

Breeding, M. (2011 April 1). Automation marketplace 2011: The new frontier. Library Journal

Archive [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/

Breeding, M. and Yelton, A. (2011). Chapter 2: Analyzing Comments for Themes. Library

Technology Reports, 47(4), 9-11.

Breeding, M. and Yelton, A. (2011). Chapter 3: Breaking down the data. Library Technology

Reports, 47(4), 12-26.

Breeding, M. and Yelton, A. (2011). Chapter 4: Vendor Profiles. Library Technology Reports,

47(4), 27-34.

Cassell, M. (2008). Why governments innovate: Adoption and implementation of open source

software by four european four cities. International Public Management Journal 11(2),

193-213.

Colford, S. (2009), Explaining free and open source software. Bulletin of the America Society

for Information Science Technology, 35(2) 10–14. doi: 10.1002/bult.2008.1720350205

Corrado, E.M. and Moulaison, H.L. (2012 March 5). The library cloud pros and cons [Webpage].

The Digital Shift. Library Journal: School Library Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.thedigitalshift.com/


22

Denis G. and Mang, S. (2012). Avoiding the death zone: choosing and running a library project

in the cloud. Library Hi Tech, Vol. 30(3), 418 – 427. doi: 10.1108/07378831211266564

Dennison, L. H. and Lewis, A. (2011). Small and open source: decisions and implementation of

an open source integrated library system in a small private college. Georgia Library

Quarterly, 48(2), 6-8.

Dorman, D. (2002). Open sources software and intellectual commons. American Libraries,

33(12), 51-54

Julisch, K., and Hall, M. (2010). Security and control in the cloud. Information Security

Journal: A Global Perspective. 19(6), 299-309.

Koha. (2012). Official website of Koha Library Software [Webpage]. Retrieved from

http://koha-community.org/

Koha. (2012). Trademark usage policy [Website]. Official website Koha library software.

Retrieved from http://koha-community.org/about/policy/koha-trademark-usage-

agreement/

Krishnamurthy, S. 2005. The launching of Mozilla Firefox-A case study in community-led

marketing. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA,

http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/Sandeep2.pdf.

Lakhani, K.R. and Wolf, R.G. (2005). Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation

and effort in free/open source software projects. In J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. Hissam, &

K. Lakhani (Eds.), Perspectives on free and open source software (pp. 1-27). Cambridge,

Massachusetts: MIT Sloan School of Management. Retrieved from http://ocw.mit.edu/

courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-

spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf


23

LibLime. (2011 November 23). PTFS LibLime granted provisional use of Koha trademark in

New Zealand [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.liblime.com/ptfsliblime-granted-

provisional-use-of-koha-trademark-in-new-zealand?a=1&c=1254

Lipowicz, A. (2012 March 05). Agencies flock to Drupal content management system

[Webpage]. GCN (Government Communication Network). Retrieved from

http://gcn.com/articles/2012/03/02/epa-drupal-nasa.aspx

Miller, B. Koski, D. Lee, C. Maganty, V. Murthy, R. Natarajan, A. & Steidl, J. (October 1995).

Fuzz revisited: A re-examination of the reliability of UNIX utilities and services.

[Webpage]. Computer Science Department, University of Wisconsin. Retrieved from

http://www.eecs.northwestern.edu/~robby/courses/395-495-2009-fall/fuzz-revisited.pdf

Molyneux, R. E. (2011). An open source ILS Glossary: Version 2. Public Library Quarterly,

30(2), 165-176.

Mustonen, M. (2003). Copyleft-the economics of Linux and other open source software.

Information Economics and Policy 15, 99-121.

Polaris Users Group. (2012 August 31). News and announcements [Webpage]. Retrieved from

www.polarisusersgroup.org/

Open Network Libraries. (2012). Koha Features: Koha overview [Webpage]. Retrieved from

http://onl.org.nz/koha-features

Pan, D., and Fong, Y. (2010). Return on investment for collaborative collection development: A

cost-benefit evaluation of consortia purchasing. Collaborative Librarianship, 2(4), 183-

192.

Puckett, J. (2012). Open source software and librarian values. Georgia Library Quarterly, 49(3),

30-34.


24

Rapp, D. (2011 August 15). Open source reality check: Implementation experience reveals pros

and cons [Webpage]. Library Journal Archive. Retrieved from

http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/891350-264/open_source_reality_check.html.csp

Rubin, R.E. (2010). Foundations of library and information science (3rd

ed.). New York, NY:

Neal Schuman Publishers, Inc.

Salve, A., Lihitkar, S., and Lihitkar, R. (2012). Open source software as tools for libraries: An

overview. DESIDOC Journal Of Library & Information Technology, 32(5), 381-387.

Schneider, K.G. (2008/2009 December/January). The thick of the fray: Open source software in

librarians in the first decade of the century [Webpage]. ASIS&T Bulletin. Retrieved from

http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Dec-08/DecJan09_Schneider.html

Schiller, K. (2011). Amazon EC2 outage highlights risks. Information Today, 28(6), 10.

Silver, T. M. (2010). Monitoring network and service availability with open-source software.

Information Technology and Libraries, 29(1), 8-22.

Wang, F. (2011). Building an open source institutional repository at a small law school library: Is

it realistic or unattainable? Information Technology and Libraries, 30(2), 81-84.

Wheeler, B. and Hilton, J.L. (2012 November 1). The marketecture of community [Webpage].

EDUCAUSE Review Online. Vol. 47(6) November/December 2012. Retrieved from

http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/marketecture-community

Yang, S.Q. (2012). Move into the cloud, shall we? Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 29(1), 4 – 7. doi:

10.1108/07419051211223417

Yang, S. Q. and Hofmann, M. A. (2010). The next generation library catalog: A comparative

study of the OPACs of Koha, Evergreen, and Voyager. Information Technology &

Libraries, 29(3), 141-150.

http://dx.doi.org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.1108/07419051211223417


25

Documents

Open Source vs. Proprietary Software in LIS