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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
-