Open Source vs Vendor
Opportunities
Marshall Breeding
Director for Innovative Technologies and Research
Vanderbilt University
http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/breeding
ASERL Membership Meeting
Asheville, NC
April 4, 2007
Software Development
► Open
Source vs. Vendor Beta
Partnerships
► Pros and Cons
► Who is Doing What, and
► Is there an Open Source Project for
ASERL Members?
Open Source
► Program
source code available
► No license cost for the software itself
► Can be part of commercial offerings
► Anyone can fix problems, add features, etc.
Proprietary Software Development
► Source
code kept secret
► Only binary code distributed
► License fees charged for software
► Ongoing development funded by license
fees + maintenance/support fees
Open Source Cost considerations
► Relative
parity with commercial alternatives
► Other cost components same or greater
 Hardware
 Facilities management
 Systems administration, security, network
management
 Ongoing development
 Integration with enterprise environment
 Support and service
Open Source Infrastructure
► Linux
operating system
► Apache Web Server
 http://www.apache.org/
 Tomcat, Xerces, Jakarta, etc
► MySQL
database
► Lucene – full text search engine
Open source ILS
► Koha
► Evergreen
► LearningAccess
ILS
Koha
► Originally
developed by Katipo
Communications in New Zealand for
Horowhenua Library Trust
► Released as Open Source
Koha
Libraries using Koha
► ~300
(mostly small) libraries
► Horowhenua Library Trust
► Nelsonville Public Library
 Athens County, OH
► Crawford
County Federated Library System
 10 Libraries in PA
Evergreen
► Developed
by the Georgia Public Library
Service
► Small development team
► June 2004 – development begins
► Sept 5, 2006 – live production
Libraries using Evergreen
► Georgia
PINES
 http://gapines.org
► 252
libraries in Georgia
 Does not include municipal systems: AtlantaFulton County, Cobb County
► Experimental
evaluation
 King County Library System in WA state.
Evergreen
Learning Access ILS
► Learning
Access Institute
► Turnkey Open Source ILS
► Designed for underserved rural public
libraries
► http://www.learningaccess.org
LearningAccess ILS
SCOOLS
► South
Central Organization of (School)
Libraries
► consortium of K-12 school libraries in NY
► Koha derivative
SCOOLS
LibraryFind
► Metasearch
tool
► Developed by Oregon State University
► http://libraryfind.org
Library Find
Commercial Support Options
► Index
Data
► LibLime
► Index Data
► Equinox Software, Inc.
LibLime
► Commercial
spin-off from the Nelsonville
Public Library
► 9 employees
► Recently acquired Koha division of Katipo
Communications in New Zealand
 Original Developer of Koha
Equinox Software
► Commercial
spin-off of Georgia Public
Library Services
► Developers of Evergreen
► No full-time employees, all still work for
GPLS
Open Source ILS adoption in libraries
► Georgia
PINES
► Nelsonville Public Library
Examples
► King




County Library System
Serves 1.2 million residents
43 libraries
19 million annual circulation
Investigating viability of Evergreen
eXtensible Catalog
► http://extensiblecatalog.info/
► Working
toward Open Source nextgeneration interface
► University of Rochester’s River Campus
Libraries
► Funded by the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation ($283,000)
► Study on needs and requirements, not
software development
Index Data
► Zebra
database server and indexing engine
► YAZ Toolkit for Z39.50
► YAZ Proxy Z39.50 / SRW gateway
► Keystone Digital Library System
Digital Repositiory
► DSpace
 HP + MIT
► Fedora
 Univ of Virginia + Cornell
 Commercial enhancements and support from
VTLS
Partnering with Commercial Vendors
Development partner scenario
► Capital
costs of development born by the
vendor
► Team of professional programmers
► Product management
► Quality Assurance
► R&D investment
► Market research
Library responsibility
► Input
in features and design
► Early implementation
► Testing, evaluation, assessment
Innovative Encore
20 development partners:
Grand Valley State University, Jefferson County Public Library
(CO), Miami University (OH), University of Western Ontario
(Canada), and Wright State University (OH), Scottsdale
Public Library and the Lillian Goldman Library at Yale Law
School, Binghamton University [SUNY] (NY), Deakin
University (Australia), Deschutes Public Library (OR),
Georgetown University (DC), Michigan State University,
Nashville Public Library (TN), Scottsdale Public Library
System (AZ), Springfield-Greene County Library (MO), the
Tri-College Library Consortium (PA), University of Glasgow
(Scotland), the University of Queensland Library
(Australia), Westerville Public Library (OH)
►
Vanderbilt Primo Experience
► Library-wide
decision making process
► Major investment of library resources
► Complex project with many components
Primo
► New
Discovery and Delivery tool for library
content and services
► Next-generation library interface
► ILS bibliographic data + TV News
 Example of adding local digital content
► Integrated
federated search
► Integrated OpenURL linking services
Project costs
► LITS
team leader
► Project Manager
► Systems administrator
► Major agenda item for Digital Library
Steering Committee
► 5 project teams
► Intensive effort: Aug 2006 – May 2007
Balance of work: Vendor / Library
► Work
performed by the library represents a very
small portion of the overall effort to develop the
complete system
► Beta-test Libraries not primarily responsible for:





►A
Initial product conception
Programming
Debugging
Technical design
Recruitment, training, support for team of designers,
programmers, QA
beta-test library enhances the quality assurance
that the vendor must do anyway
Advantages to Beta Test
► Ability
to influence a product without taking
on full costs of development
► Early adoption
► Increased opportunities to ensure the
product will meet the needs of the library
► Increases leverage with vendor
► Discounted capital investment
 Offset by increased investment in library staff
Disadvantages to Beta Test
► Limited
degree of involvement on the frontend vision of the product
► Less direct advantage to other libraries
► Will still have to purchase and pay support
for the product
► Significant investment of library resources
 Cost/Benefit ratio?
Advantages to full Open Source
Development
► Full
control
 Concept/Vision
 Features, Functionality
► Direct
benefit to larger community that may
also use the software
► Less vulnerability to vendor abandonment?
Disadvantages of Open Source
Development
► Capital
investment
 Development tools, facilities, hardware
► Resource




investment
Software design specialists
Professional programmers
System administrators
Recruitment, training, management
► Project
management tools
► Assessment tools
 Benchmarking, etc.
Institutional Commitment
► Who
will be responsible for bearing the cost
of the project
► Ongoing development of the product
► Support, maintenance, security
Potential projects
► Next-generation
catalog
► ASERL combined catalog
 Primo implementation that spans multiple
ASERL libraries
► Resource
sharing
► Kudzu replacement
► Automation/Tracking for Kudzu delivery
service