Open Source Software, SPEC Kit 340 (July 2014)

Thacker, J. Curtis; Knutson, Charles D.; Dehmlow, Mark

Page intentional left blank.

Previous Page Next Page

SPEC Kit 340: Open Source Software (July 2014) resources

Free Attachments

Follow Link Open-Source-Software-SPEC-Kit-340.pdf

Extracted Text (may have errors)

Page intentional left blank.

Help

SPEC Kit 340: Open Source Software · 17
SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
The SPEC Survey on Open Source Software was designed by J. Curtis Thacker, Discovery Systems Manager
at Brigham Young University’s Harold B. Lee Library, Dr. Charles D. Knutson, Associate Professor of
Computer Science at Brigham Young University, and Mark Dehmlow, Program Director for Information
Technology at the University of Notre Dame’s Hesburgh Libraries. These results are based on data submitted
by 77 of the 125 ARL member libraries (62%) by the deadline of March 18, 2014. The survey’s introductory
text and questions are reproduced below, followed by the response data and selected comments from the
respondents.
Open source software (OSS) is software that adheres to the following principles: “open source licenses must permit non-exclusive
commercial exploitation of the licensed work, must make available the work’s source code, and must permit the creation of
derivative works from the work itself.”[St. Laurent, Andrew M. (2008). Understanding Open Source and Free Software
Licensing. O’Reilly Media, p 8. ISBN 9780596553951].
The emergence of OSS has increased collaboration among research libraries, providing greater control of library tools, as well as
improving usability and quality of library resources. This collaborative approach fits neatly with the knowledge and resource sharing
ideology of libraries. While OSS is ostensibly “free,” adoption of OSS within an organization is not without significant support,
integration, and development costs.
The purpose of this survey is to study ARL member libraries’ adoption and/or development of OSS for functions such as ILS, discovery
layer, electronic resource management, inter-library loan, digital asset management, institutional repository, course reserve,
streaming media, study room scheduler, digital preservation, publishing, floor maps, data warehouse, or other library-related
purposes. We would like to understand organizational factors that affect decisions to adopt OSS, the cost of OSS, and the awareness
of OSS systems already in use. With regard to development of OSS, we would like to understand: 1) research libraries’ policies and
practices on open sourcing their code 2) the frequency with which research libraries contribute to open source projects 3) whether
research libraries are reluctant to make their code openly available and 4) the most common benefits and challenges encountered
when research libraries open source their code.

Previous Page Next Page

SPEC Kit 340: Open Source Software (July 2014) resources

SPEC Kit 340: Open Source Software · 15
Conclusion
This survey reveals that nearly all of the responding
ARL member libraries are developing custom soft-
ware and/or adopting one or more open source sys-
tems. Contribution to OSS projects is also common,
with more than three quarters of respondents actively
contributing to OSS projects.
Many respondents expressed a desire on the part
of their developers to share with and participate in
one or more OSS communities. Larger organizations
committed more resources to OSS projects than small-
er organizations, but we found no significant correla-
tions suggesting a disproportionate level of commit-
ment to OSS projects as a function of IT staff size. The
nearly universal adoption of OSS systems and the
high level of contribution to OSS projects may suggest
that adoption of and contribution to OSS projects has
entered the mainstream for libraries. Simply stated,
libraries that develop software also predominantly
contribute to OSS projects.
The results of this survey suggest that librar-
ies view organizational behaviors surrounding the
adoption of open source software separate from
contribution to OSS projects. For example, while re-
spondents view OSS adoption as a means of saving
time and resources, contributing to OSS projects is
viewed as being advantageous for different reasons,
primarily engagement in an OSS community. For de-
velopers, the sense of social involvement in a commu-
nity represented by an OSS project can be a positive
source of professional satisfaction, ultimately leading
to greater productivity and a return on investment
for the library.
Control of software emerged as a theme common
to both adopting and contributing to OSS projects.
Those adopting OSS systems felt that access to source
code gave them greater control, allowing them to
change the software as needed, rather than being
subject to the whims of a proprietary solution. Those
that contributed to OSS projects felt that they gained
greater opportunity to influence product direction,
especially with respect to product features. In both
cases, they perceived a sufficient benefit to their
overall productivity to justify the expense of their
involvement (as adopters, contributors, or both) in
OSS systems.

Previous Page Next Page

Page 9Survey Results click to expand contents

Page 67Representative Documents click to expand contents

Page 69OSS Contributor Agreements click to expand contents

Page 81OSS Licenses click to expand contents

Page 103OSS Copyright Notices click to expand contents

Page 109OSS Adoption Decision click to expand contents

Page 121Job Descriptions of OSS Contributors click to expand contents

Page 167Organization Charts click to expand contents

Page 179Selected Resources click to expand contents

SPEC Kit 340: Open Source Software (July 2014) resources

All section downloads (PDF) click to expand contents

Free Attachments

Extracted Text (may have errors)

Help

loading

SPEC Kit 340: Open Source Software (July 2014) resources

SPEC Kit 340: Open Source Software (July 2014) resources