Why public libraries need to support open source
opensource.com
opensource.com
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.
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.
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.
Preferably being either RFCs, part of a free and open working group, or at the very least ceded to the public domain in an automatic and timely manor once maintenance has ceased.
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...
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.
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.
Wow, this is such a great quote. Do you have any sources on who said this? I cannot figure from a simple search.
Wow, great quote.
Archived URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20161007165853/https://opensource...