LGMA looking for interested parties involved in Open Source

The Local Goverment Management Agency has posted a Request for Information for interested parties, from the software industry and academia, regarding Open Source solutions.

The LGMA, previously LGCSB, are an influential organisation in Ireland who recommend software solutions to Local Government. Having ended their Enterprise License Agreement with Microsoft, they are now turning their attention to Open Source.

The LGMA are interested in finding out what Open Source applications are available that could be used by Local Authorities in Ireland, from Open Office type apps, to an OSS desktop, to database applications like Financial systems, CRMs etc.

Here are the 5 areas of interest that they have identified:

1. Desktop Office Automation Systems (Word Processor, Spread sheet, Email, Presentation Tool. etc)
2. Content Management Systems (Website design, Taxonomy Support, Data Catalogue, Social Media etc)
3. Document Management / Case Management / CRM Systems (Taxonomy, Linked Data, etc)
4. BackOffice Systems: (Database, Operating System, eMail, Proxy, Firewall, etc)
5. Geographic Information Systems (Data Catalogue, Inspire Compliance, Open Data, etc)

Responses have to be submitted by 11th March.

Fortunately OSLO Ltd are in a good position to respond having experience in both the Evergreen and Koha Library Management Systems. We will be submitting a response with both of these products in mind.

Open Source versus Traditional Licensing

The open source approach does not necessarily require that the source code be distributed automatically to each user. The vast majority of users are not programmers and will never have need for the source code. The open source approach requires, however, that there be a convenient way to access the source code on request, even if only binary versions are routinely distributed.

Open source software is governed by a family of software licenses that embody a philosophy of software freedom, appropriate attribution, and ensuring that no one has an unfair advantage. No single set of rules applies to all—many different flavors of open source licenses have emerged to accommodate many different business models, legal concerns and philosophical standards.

Open source software, with its inherent requirement for access to source code, comes with the freedom to make changes or derivative versions. If a programmer wants to make changes to an application, it is permissible to do so under any of the open source licenses. The freedom to modify open source software introduces some complexities related to version control.

Ideally, if a programmer discovers an error or makes an improvement in an open source program, those changes can be attributed to the individual or organization that oversees the development of that application and incorporated into future releases and distributions. As more users of the software make more improvements, the application grows in functionality and stability over time. The community of programmers involved in using and improving the software often forms some kind of organization that deals with issues of quality assurance, testing, and version control and might establish a road map for future development.

Another requirement for open source software is the freedom to share. If I have access to an open source software application, I can share it with someone else. If I modify the software, I’m free to share that modified version provided that I meet certain requirements like giving proper attribution to the original version and making available the source code associated with the modified version. Open source software precludes users from passing off someone else’s work as their own. While any user of an open source program is allowed to share derivative versions, there is no requirement to do so.

Open source software is not synonymous with “public domain” software. Copyrights apply to open source software, whereas public domain generally implies no claim to copyright. Given the implied nature of copyrights, saying that software is in the public domain does not ensure the protections given by open source software licenses.

Open source programs adhere to a variety of different licenses. One of the most popular is the GPL General Public License. The GPL Public License, given its adoption by all of the Open Source LMS projects, is of particular interest in the library market.

The GNU General Public License, now in Version 3, requires software to be free to use in any way, share, and modify. It requires that the source code be made available.

What is Open Source?

The label open source refers to a key principle—that the source code for the software must be made available to its users.

Open source software is free software. It’s not necessarily cost-free, but is free to use, free to modify, and free to share.

Open source is a model of dealing with software that presents an alternative to the commercial licensing that imposes many layers of restrictions. It also stands for a broader philosophical approach to software that aims to give its users more freedom and allow them to break free from constraints associated with the traditional proprietary model.

Programmers write software using languages like C, C++, Java, or Perl. The code written by the programmer will usually be compiled into a binary form that can be run on a computer. It is this binary form that is most commonly distributed for use. Distributing the binaries saves the user from the work of recompiling the software and makes for a much easier process of installation.

In the realm of proprietary software, only the binary form of the program is distributed to users. The original source code is held as confidential proprietary information, made available only to programmers of the organization that created the software application. In a business model that is dependent on revenue from licensing fees and prohibits use by anyone not paying for the product, it’s important to control access to the source code, lest unauthorized versions become freely available. In this realm, the way the software works as expressed in the source code is usually a closely guarded trade secret.

In contrast, open source software requires that the source code underlying a computer program be made available to its users. With the source code available, other programmers can study how the software works, fix errors, and make modifications. If the software isn’t exactly suited for a given use, it can be adjusted or improved. The open source model of software development values the inspection of the source code by other programmers. It proposes that when more programmers have the ability to view and study the code, the more likely it is that errors will be discovered and repaired.

Open source software has been a growing part of the overall landscape for the last decade or so. In the broader information technology arena, open source software alternatives have become well-established in key areas of infrastructure from operating systems to web servers.

Open source operating systems include many varieties of Linux that compete with proprietary systems like Microsoft Windows. The classic polemic casts Microsoft as a monopolistic domineering company against the open source alternatives that free the world from its stranglehold. In the real world, many individuals continue to choose the proprietary option, and others prefer open source alternatives. These two approaches coexist in the market.

In almost all aspects of computer infrastructure, open source and proprietary software are both available. Whether a library uses an open source LMS or not it may make use of open source software in other parts of its computing environment and there are lots of well established Open Source products out there that we use all the time: Firefox, Linux, Java, Apache, MySQL, Moodle, Drupal, OpenOffice etc.

The main thing about Open Source is that it is community driven, by the users not by the vendor.