Dear Members A number of useful thoughts have emerged from the discussion on SOUL, Inflibnet's role, NewGenLib and Koha. I would also like to add to the discussion, hopefully in an objective and non-partisan manner. 1.. First and foremost we need to accept the fact that open source solutions (in all domains and application areas) are increasingly considered to be not only credible alternatives but also cost-effective in the long run if the community behind such software is an active participant. Good examples of strong communities are seen in Koha and Evergreen. 2.. Part of the reason why Koha and Evergreen have strong communities is because of strong social and cultural influencess in the countries where they are most actively used, e.g., USA. I must comment here that in India, we do not have the same approach either because we don't think it is needed or simply we do not have the needed infrastructure. For instance, even today many libraries in India do not have relaible Internet access. In such cases, how can we expect better community participation. The extent to which members of a community support each other (in spite of commercial support) in India leaves much to be desired. I am afraid, our score card on sharing our resources and knowledge freely with other professionals via forums and local associations is poor. 3.. NewGenLib is a good example of inadequate community involvement. We have trained over 1000 library and IT staff in India in NewGenLib but we do not see many of them participating in community forums. 4.. I agree with Mr Mahesh of NISCAIR, that in a competitive world, all manner of products have a place in the sun. Libraries should be free to choose what they consider is useful to them. 5.. I believe that an important consideration in choosing a software is the extent to which it supports local practices. I am aware that NewGenLib has attempted to cater to the many practices (some may not be considered good practices) that libraries in India follow. For instance, some libraries still ask for quotations from vendors before they place orders for books. I know for sure that in NewGenLib we have been called upon (often at great expense) to customize the software to suit a unique requirement in a library. Similarly, in India, bodies such as AICTE and NAAC ask for ceratin types of reports during their annual inspection visits. Software developed in India (SOUL and NewGenLib) would have provided for these. 6.. Equally important is the potential that a software has to take note of and leverage new technologies, and of the rapid shifts that are taking place, e.g., the need for API's, web services, open schemas and social web features. 7.. All said and done, I would agree with the view that SOUL should also be made open source so that there would be more options for libraries. When a poorly funded venture behind NewGenLib could be made open source, I really do not see why a well funded, quasi-governmental agency cannot make it open source. 8.. Finally, I would like to state that in this world "There is no such thing as a Free Lunch". Open source developers have to survive and if they charge for services these should be paid for willingly. Koha has the backing of commercial companies in the US and elsewhere and I am sure they will not be sustainable only wth Koha if libraries do not pay for services. In the case of NewGenLib, I am aware that we have many problems convincing libraries and managements that open source does not mean FREE, it is more abour FREEDOM of choice, freedom to change, freedom from vendor hegemony, freedom to ask for new features, etc.. Thanks. Haravu Trustee, Kesavan Inst of Information and Knowledge Management 1.. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.