A response to ILS CTO’s about open source software…

At the ALA Annual conference just held in Washington DC, a panel discussion was held with the CTO’s from numerous ILS vendors. (See one participants summary) It was a packed session covering a lot of ground. At the very end, the question was asked about what they thought of the open source software trend. Since no open source company CTO was on the panel, I found the answers lacking some knowledge and understanding of what is happening out there. I try to fill that gap below:

“Open source software lack maturity.”

An iPhone lacks maturity too but we suspect most people will agree that the product represents a revolutionary new trend in technology. In other words, just because the idea is new does not mean it is immature, or bad. What most vendors of proprietary products want you to forget is that there are so many more people at work on an open source product than there are on their proprietary product(s). This happens because the process is open to virtually anyone who is interested in participating (and many do), whereas in the proprietary model, this tends to be tightly controlled and limited by the vendor. Open source software vendors join forces with their customers in a community effort to develop the product. The result is faster development and the users of the product get exactly what they want rather than what a product manager heard and told the programmer(s).

“Open source companies have no product road map.“

Simply not true. The big difference in road maps between open source companies and proprietary software companies is that the road map followed by open source vendors doesn’t belong to a company it belongs to the community of product users. So rather than being taken someplace you might not want to go, you have a major say in where an open source product goes, what roadmap is followed and when updates get applied to your system and what costs you decide to take on to use those updates and new features. Open source represents a new approach. You’re in control; not the company.

“Is it really open?”

A fair question. However, if you can get the source code (which you can for the products we support), if it uses an open source license and you’re free to modify it, support it yourself or purchase support from other companies, we believe you can call it open.

“Is there infrastructure in place to really support the product?”

One of the news items at the ALA conference was the extent of options now available to you for obtaining support for open source products. In the Open Solutions Booth (2437) there were three companies that support some or all of the products that were being shown in the booth. The other important thing to realize here is that this means not only is there support in place, but you have options. If you don’t like the quality of service, or the price, you can shop around. Try doing that with a proprietary software product! Open source means you have control, you have options and you get cost savings.

“Is open source software viable over the long road and will support be available for the long-term?”

This question can–and should–be asked of every software product, whether it is open source or proprietary. And the answer, as librarians have discovered, does not depend on whether the software is proprietary or open source. It depends on a combination of the quality of the product and the stability of the company. If a proprietary software product has reached the end of its development road and/or the company is sold, currents users may find themselves saddled with a product whose future is in doubt or even terminated. Sound familiar? This senario is less likely to happen with open source software, because from early on the software is understood, improved and supported by many parties, any one of which can extend their services to additional libraries.

So, in a profession where, just in the last year, numerous products have been essentially dead-ended by the proprietary vendors offering them, to raise this question with regard to open source software seems a bit ironic. It couldn’t be made clearer that buying a software product from a proprietary vendor places you at considerable risk when gauging long-term viability or support of the product. Open source products, on the other hand, provide several layers of insurance against this happening for users of these products, which are: a) you have the source code for the product. You don’t have to go to court, you don’t have to press for a release of escrow: you already have the product source code in your hands and no one can take that away from you, b) you can obtain support from numerous sources including your own IT staff (if you have them) or from commercial vendors (like CARE, Index Data, LibLime or others) or from hired consultants, c) open source products are developed from “community” thought, not just company product managers thoughts which we believe, means you’ll see products that stay far more current with technology trends and thus stay more viable.

“What will it cost to add functionality to the open source products?”

If someone raises this question it means they simply don’t understand one of the real major benefits of the open source movement. Open source development is simply more cost effective for many libraries because it means their money will go further and allow them to get more functionality for the expenditure. Why? Because your library is not paying the vendor to maintain an R&D environment. You’re not in a situation where you can request added functionality, but you can’t be sure what you get is what you want or that it will even get added at all. In the open source development model every library that uses the software can (but doesn’t have to be) an R&D environment, i.e. real world experience dictates what the product will do. Because there are libraries that will join together to contribute code, the cost of adding functionality can be lower, and the results tend to be far more comprehensive and have higher quality when released.

“Is open source software really free?”

What is “free” in open source software is freedom. Freedom from having the future of your automation product dictated, or terminated by your vendor. Freedom to obtain service where you want at a price you want. Freedom from licensing and license upgrade charges.

If a proprietary software vendor raises this point, they’re trying to divert your attention from the cost efficiencies you’ll realize by using open source software.

So, yes, there are major benefits. But like all software products, you will still need to pay for training, installation, support, unique development needs and maintenance. However, think of the new things you might achieve because of the freedom you’ve realized by going open.

“Being open is more important than just open source.”

A point we agree on with our proprietary competitors! Being open is far more than just using open source software. It’s about an approach to customer needs with regard to costs and with regard to the future direction of the products they use. When you’re open, the community directs the future, not the company. Yes, being open is about far more than just using open source software. (See my other posting on this topic.)

Note: when the proprietary vendors make it possible to bid your software support and maintenance with multiple firms, then we’ll know they’ve begun to truly understand about being open!

“Customers can have a co-existence strategy with open source.”

We couldn’t agree more. Those that advocate either pure proprietary or pure open source solutions are not being realistic. There is, and will be, room for both types of solutions. Like anything else in life, there are advantages and disadvantages to any approach. What the Open Solutions Booth at ALA was about was making people aware of open source solutions as a viable option with a lot of different offerings to choose from, all fully backed by a variety of companies that will provide installation, training, support, maintenance and ongoing development. We tend to think that open source solutions are for those libraries that are forward thinking and want to make their money stretch as far as possible in meeting the needs of their users. But is that every library? Well probably not. But it is a lot of libraries.