
Why public libraries need to support open source - dluc
https://opensource.com/life/16/9/public-library-open-source
======
cyphar
And this is why I don't use the term "open source" anymore. The "top 5 reasons
to use open source" are all completely disconnected and don't really have any
logical progression from the "ideals of open source" ("open source" doesn't
have an ideology). Why libraries should use free software is a much more
straightforward list:

1\. Free software means that libraries can be assured that they can continue
running on the same software and freely maintain it, without needing to worry
about downgrades or license agreements.

2\. Free software means that libraries can collaborate on improving the
software they use (and help one another to run their libraries efficiently)
without violating a proprietary license agreement.

3\. Libraries are meant to be stewards of knowledge, and proprietary software
takes away your ability to learn about software. Free software solves this
problem, for the patrons as well as the librarians.

4\. The reading history of an individual should remain private, and there is
no way for a library to be sure of this without using free software. A reading
history that can be used as evidence threatens human rights.

5\. A library running on free software cannot ever be pressured by developers
to stop distributing some form of book. As libraries are a primary source of
information and knowledge, this is a freedom of speech issue and can only
truly be solved by free software.

All of the above list clearly links to the four fundamental freedoms (with
emphasis on my own politics). But that's why I invite everyone to refer to
free software by it's proper name.

~~~
onion2k
_Free software means that libraries can be assured that they can continue
running on the same software and freely maintain it, without needing to worry
about downgrades or license agreements._

While true in principle, that doesn't happen very often. A large open source
application that's abandoned by it's maintainer(s) will die very quickly, and
it's hard to find someone who'll take on the job of maintaining it even if
you're willing to pay. Of course, using a closed source alternative will have
the same issue, but without the possibility of someone taking over, so it's
worse.

The ideal course is to use an application, regardless of license, that
supports an open standard for importing and exporting your data so you're not
locked in; that way you can transition everything to an alternative
application should things go wrong.

~~~
cyphar
> While true in principle, that doesn't happen very often. A large open source
> application that's abandoned by it's maintainer(s) will die very quickly,
> and it's hard to find someone who'll take on the job of maintaining it even
> if you're willing to pay.

While that does happen, you get people forking the original project and so on.
And it should be noted that if a piece of software works "well enough" then
there isn't really a need to update every two weeks -- the software works and
don't touch it. If there's a bug that's bothering them, then you can
absolutely pay a contractor to modify the code and fix the bug (that's what
contractors do). Obviously the contractor wouldn't be happy to implement huge
new features, but that's why you should fund the original project so it
doesn't die.

------
baldfat
Former Librarian (9 years out) : I was shocked at the negative reaction I
received from all librarians at the time with the terms Open Source / Free
Software.

Caused is the proprietary nature of the Library Systems. They were so archaic
and backwards it caused me to look for a new job within 6 months. Mine was
from Sirsi Dynix. Steve Balmer had nothing on these people.

My servers was a Windows Server with a Oracles DB Array and a few other
servers. I was required to reboot daily my windows box and I had to halt the
whole system so I could do my daily backups. It was horrible (I also had to
switch to two systems since they killed the system we purchased from them
(prior to my arrival)) In total about 120 hours of webinars in 3 months can
cause anyone to lose the will to hear and see anything. So I started the
research to replace everything to Open Source (Evergreen) and the onslaught
was intense. I was just doing research and they were already telling my boss
how everything they did wrong was my mistake. I had the logs to show that they
were lying and a boss who trusted me, but it was SO FRUSTRATING.

They would do everything to discourage the ideals of Open Source in
conferences they would have info sheets just spreading FUD about the
insecurity of Open Source since Hackers could have access to the whole code.

Wikileaks even did a release. Check out the Librarian defending the FUD.
[http://jasongriffey.net/wp/2009/11/03/sirsi-dynix-vs-open-
so...](http://jasongriffey.net/wp/2009/11/03/sirsi-dynix-vs-open-source-
software/)

So glad I am not a Systems Librarian today. That and paying tens of thousands
every year for old dusty journals pay for by tax dollars.

------
gnicholas
Libraries do support open source software. In some cases, they even create it.
For example, Enki, an ebook platform created by Califa (a consortium of CA
libraries) was created in response to OverDrive (a larger for-proft ebook
platform). This isn't to say that they couldn't do more to get the word out
about consumer-facing open source projects/tools, but we should give credit
where it's due.

~~~
baldfat
Evergreen is the best Open Source Solution. They Georgia Libraries made their
own after all the money and frustration using a closed source one.

[https://evergreen-ils.org](https://evergreen-ils.org)

------
NateyJay
The article doesn't say why open source is more important for library staff to
know about than the thousands of other subjects libraries have books on.

~~~
parennoob
I agree -- the article is more of a collection of pointers towards Open Source
resources, and doesn't directly say why it's important or interesting.

But, at the risk of deviating from the article contents _I_ do have a great
reason why they should. It's simple -- as someone who I can't recall said, “If
libraries were invented today, they'd be declared illegal and shut down.” We
seem to be perpetually moving towards a world where you don't _own_ any
content, you have to perpetually license it to consume it; and the company
that really owns it can take it away if you can't pay the monthly
subscription, or have the wrong name, or happen to travel to another country.

Libraries and open source are alike in that both have shown that you can make
a model different from the standard “produce this year's widgets / buy this
year's widgets” actually _work_. Libraries buy and discard millions of books
per year, and ensure that anyone, regardless of their financial standing has
access to literature. Similarly, Open Source has ensured that you don't
necessarily have to pay massive sums to Microsoft or Apple or their ilk and
comply with their ridiculously restrictive policies in order to run software
on the computing hardware _you own_.

Perhaps a bit tenuous, but I think this is a good enough argument that
libraries should know about, and possibly promote an interest in Open Source.

~~~
the_common_man
> “If libraries were invented today, they'd be declared illegal and shut
> down."

Wow, this is such a great quote. Do you have any sources on who said this? I
cannot figure from a simple search.

~~~
parennoob
I really can't remember. This is the earliest source I can find that basically
says the same thing.
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100630/12152310025.shtml](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100630/12152310025.shtml)

------
tuukkah
An open source library system is one good way to get libraries first-hand
experience with the advantages: [http://www.koha.org](http://www.koha.org)

------
jasonthevillain
Shouldn't it be the other way around?

~~~
dredmorbius
Both wouldn't be bad.

------
aargh_aargh
"Site under maintenance"

Archived URL:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20161007165853/https://opensource...](http://web.archive.org/web/20161007165853/https://opensource.com/life/16/9/public-
library-open-source)

------
reustle
I was hoping this was an argument for the software powering libraries to be
open source :)

