[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

7. Open Source Library Systems: Getting Started



Subject: Library Juice 4:21
X-URL: http://libr.org/Juice/issues/vol4/LJ_4.21.html

     7. Open Source Library Systems: Getting Started

     (c) 1999 by Dan Chudnov

     note: a significantly edited version of this
     article appeared in the August 1, 1999 issue of
     Library Journal. You might prefer their edited
     version to this version. You are free to reproduce
     the text of this version for any purpose and in
     any format, provided that you reproduce it in its
     entirety (including this notice) and refer to the
     url from which it is available:
     http://oss4lib.org/readings/oss4lib-getting-started.php

     Introduction

     The biggest news in the software industry in
     recent months is open source.  Every week in the
     technology news we can read about IBM or Oracle or
     Netscape or Corel announcing plans to release
     flagship products as open source or a version of
     these products that runs on an open source
     operating system such as Linux. In its defense
     against the Department of Justice, Microsoft has
     pointed to Linux and its growing market share as
     evidence that Microsoft cannot exert unfair
     monopoly power over the software industry. Dozens
     of new open source products along with regular
     news of upgrades, bug fixes, and innovative new
     features for these products are announced every
     day at web sites followed by thousands.

     The vibe these related events and activities send
     out is one of fundamental change in the software
     industry, change that alters the rules of how to
     make software--and how to make money selling
     software. What is all the noise about, and what
     does it mean for libraries? Open Source: What it
     is and Why it Works

     If you've ever used the internet, you've used open
     source software.  Many of the servers and
     applications running on machines throughout the
     wired world rely on software created using the
     open source process. Examples of such software are
     Apache, the most widely used web server in the
     world, and sendmail, "the backbone of the
     Internet's email server hardware."  [TOR] Open
     source means several things:

     Open source software is typically created and
     maintained by developers crossing institutional
     and national boundaries, collaborating by using
     internet-based communications and development
     tools;

     Products are typically a certain kind of "free",
     often through a license that specifies that
     applications and source code (the programming
     instructions written to create the applications)
     are free to use, modify, and redistribute as long
     as all uses, modifications, and redistributions
     are similarly licensed; [GPL]

     Successful applications tend to be developed more
     quickly and with better responsiveness to the
     needs of users who can readily use and evaluate
     open source applications because they are free;

     Quality, not profit, drives open source developers
     who take personal pride in seeing their working
     solutions adopted;

     Intellectual property rights to open source
     software belong to everyone who helps build it or
     simply uses it, not just the vendor or institution
     who created or sold the software.

     More succinctly, from the definition at
     www.opensource.org/: "Open source promotes
     software reliability and quality by supporting
     independent peer review and rapid evolution of
     source code. To be certified as open source, the
     license of a program must guarantee the right to
     read, redistribute, modify, and use it freely."
     [OSS]

     Software peer review is much like the peer review
     process in research. Peer review bestows a degree
     of validity upon the quality of research.
     Publications with a high "trust factor" contribute
     ideas in published works to the knowledge base of
     the entire communities they serve.

     It is the same for software. As described in the
     seminal open source work, "The Cathedral and the
     Bazaar" by Eric Raymond, author of the popular
     email program fetchmail, the debugging process can
     move faster when more individuals have both access
     to code and an environment in which constructive
     criticism is roundly welcomed. [ER] This leads to
     extremely rapid improvements in software and a
     growing sense of community ownership of an open
     source application. The feeling of community
     ownership strengthens over time because each new
     participant in the evolution of a particular
     application-- as a programmer, tester, or
     user--adds their own sense of ownership to the
     growing community pool because they are truly
     owners of the software. This community effect
     seems similar to the network effect seen across
     the internet, whereby each additional internet
     user adds value to all the other users (simply
     because each new user means there are more people
     with whom everyone else might communicate). For
     open source products which grow to be viable
     alternatives to closed-source vendor offerings,
     this growing community ownership begins to exert
     pressure on the vendors to join in. [NYT]

     This tendency shares a striking similarity to the
     economic value of libraries. A library gives any
     individual member of the community it serves
     access to a far richer range of materials than
     what that individual might gather alone. At an
     extremely low marginal cost to each citizen
     expensive reference works, new hardcover texts,
     old journals, historical documents and even
     meeting rooms might be available through a local
     library.  The library building, its collections,
     and its staff are infrastructure. This
     infrastructure serves as a kind of community
     monopoly in a local market for the provision of
     information. Instead of reaping monopoly profits
     for financial gain, however, a library returns the
     benefits of its monopoly to individual users. The
     costs of maintaining this monopoly are borne by
     the very community which holds the monopoly. To
     the extent which this model works in a given
     community, a library is a natural yet amenable
     monopolistic force. If this sounds mistaken,
     consider whether your community has libraries
     which compete or cooperate. Library Software Today

     No software is perfect. Office suites and image
     editors are pretty good; missile defense systems
     are, for all we know, appropriately effective;
     search engines could use improvement but usually
     get the job done.  While there is constant
     innovation in library software, for many of us
     online catalog systems mean a clunky old text
     interface that often is less effective than
     browsing stacks. Often, this is due to the
     obstacles we face in managing legacy systems; new
     systems might be vastly improved, but we are slow
     to upgrade when we consider the costs of migrating
     data, staff retraining, systems support, and on
     and on. Sometimes, new versions of systems we
     currently use are just not good enough to warrant
     making a switch.

     This is not surprising. The library community is
     largely made up of not-for-profit, publicly funded
     agencies which hardly command a major voice in
     today's high tech information industry. As such,
     there is not an enormous market niche for software
     vendors to fill our small demand for
     systems. Indeed the 1997 estimated library systems
     revenue was only $470 million, with the largest
     vendor earning $60 million. [BBP] Because even the
     most successful vendors are very small relative to
     the Microsofts of this world (and because
     libraries cannot compete against industry salary
     levels), there are relatively few software
     developers available to build library
     applications, and therefore a relatively small
     community pool of software talent.

     What are we left with? Some good systems, some
     bad. Few systems truly serve the access needs of
     all of our users, failing to meet a goal--access
     for everyone--that most public libraries strive to
     achieve at more fundamental levels of
     service. Because libraries are community
     resources, we tend to be quite liberal about
     intellectual and physical access issues, including
     support of freedom of speech and ADA-related
     physical plant modifications.  At the same time,
     librarians are very conservative about collections
     and data (remember the difficult issues when you
     last weeded?). Is it not odd, then, that market
     forces lead us to be extremely conservative about
     online systems software? After all, online systems
     are no less about access to information than
     having an auto-open front door or an elevator in a
     library building.

     We read of exciting technological innovations in
     library-related systems.  Innovations in advanced
     user interfaces and metadata-enabled retrieval
     environments and other areas have the potential to
     make online access more and more seamless and easy
     to use. Our systems, though, are too old--or not
     standardized enough, or too familiar to change--to
     take advantage of these advances. And creative
     ideas from exciting research seems not to make
     headway in real systems.

     Libraries, if they indeed hold the kind of
     community monopoly described above, might do well
     to enhance their services by leveraging
     community-owned information systems--which open
     source seems to promise.  Open Source and
     Libraries

     How could open source improve library services?
     First, open source systems, when licensed in the
     typical "general license" manner, cost nothing (or
     next to nothing) to use--whether they have one or
     one thousand users.  Although the costs of
     implementing and supporting the systems on which
     software runs might not change, imagine removing
     the purchase price of a new search interface (or
     ILL tool, or circulation module, etc.)  from your
     budget for next year. Rather than spending
     thousands on systems, such funds might be
     reallocated for training, hiring, or support
     needs, areas where libraries tend toward chronic
     shortfalls.

     Second, open source product support is not locked
     in to a single vendor.  The community of
     developers for a particular open source product
     tends to be a powerful support structure for Linux
     and other products because of the pride in
     ownership described above. Also, anyone can go
     into business to provide support for software for
     which the very source code is freely
     available. Thus even if a library buys an open
     source system from one vendor, it might choose
     down the road to buy technical support from
     another company--or to arrange for technical
     support from a third-party at the time of
     purchase. On top of this flexibility, any library
     with technical staff capable of understanding
     source code might find that its own staff might
     provide better internal support because the staff
     could have a better understanding of how the
     systems work.

     Third, the entire library community might share
     the responsibility of solving information systems
     accessibility issues. Few systems vendors make a
     profit by focusing their products on serving the
     needs of users who cannot operate in the
     windows/icons/menus/pointer world. If developers
     building systems for the vision impaired and other
     user groups requiring alternative access
     environments were to cooperate on creating a
     shared base of user interfaces, these shared
     solutions might be freely built into systems
     around the world far more rapidly and successfully
     than ever before.A Three-Step Process

     If you are still reading, you probably suspect
     something here might be a good idea. You might
     even want to help make ideas discussed above
     happen.  Where to begin? Understand the Phenomenon

     Axiomatic business notions have shown weaknesses
     throughout the information age; the utility of the
     internet for knowledge sharing demanded rethinking
     of what constitutes an information product. If
     nothing else, it is important for the
     international community of librarians to
     understand the open source phenomenon as part of
     the technology-driven shift in our understanding
     of the nature of information. Because the ethos
     and style of the open source initiative is so akin
     to the traditions of librarianship we hold at the
     core of our professionalism, we should find within
     open source the appropriate points of entry for
     the similar service and resource-sharing
     objectives we choose to achieve every day.

     The seminal works on open source are mostly
     technical, but they provide an envigorating view
     of the current state of software engineering. All
     are available on the internet, and they form a
     core of knowledge that might one day be
     fundamental to our discipline. "The Cathedral and
     the Bazaar," by Eric Raymond [ER], is widely cited
     as the pivotal tome describing the technical and
     social processes open source entails. "The
     Open-Source Revolution," by Tim O'Reilly [TOR],
     founder of O'Reilly and Associates, Inc., a highly
     respected publisher of pragmatic computer-related
     titles, gives a broader view of the social
     phenomenon, in particular relating open source
     software development to the scientific
     method. Finally, www.opensource.org is a central
     point of focus for the Open Source Initiative. It
     is led in part by Mr. Raymond and appeals to both
     the technical and non-technical sides of the
     community.

     To foster communication regarding open source
     systems in libraries, we have created a web site,
     http://www.med.yale.edu/library/oss4lib
     and a listserv,
     oss4lib@biomed.med.yale.edu
     They are intended as forums for announcement,
     discussion, and sharing of broad information; look
     for instructions on how to join the list along
     with a list of current open source projects for
     libraries the oss4lib site.Use Open Source Systems
     Where You Are

     Armed with understanding, we can find
     opportunities to leverage existing open source
     systems in our own institutions. The Linux
     operating system [LINUX], Apache web server
     [APACHE], and MySQL database [MYSQL] form a
     powerful, free platform for building online
     systems. Consider the value of these and other
     open source systems when making design and
     purchase decisions at your institution; you might
     find tremendous savings and increased product
     performance at the same time.

     Beyond merely using open source products, however,
     we must create them. Are you already working on
     any new applications at your institution?  Perhaps
     you've put a year or two into a homegrown search
     interface, or an online reference services tool,
     or a data model and retrieval code for an image
     archive. Is there a good reason why you wouldn't
     want to share that work?  For those of you who
     realize that someone else might benefit from what
     you've done--and that you might benefit from the
     ability to share in the work of others--consider
     thoroughly the implications of releasing your code
     under an open source license. [FH] If the benefits
     outweigh the negatives, get started sanitizing and
     documenting your code as well as you can, and set
     it free.

     Another ideal opportunity at this stage is for
     library and information science researchers to
     open their projects up for the entire community to
     review and develop as appropriate. Grant-funded
     systems builders might find an afterlife for their
     work by releasing their source. Faculty might
     design courses around building a retrieval system
     or improving an existing open source tool. Indeed
     this model is already widely used by computer
     science professors--at Yale, for instance,
     undergraduate students might work on aspects of
     the Linux kernel in their Operating Systems
     course. Grow the Phenomenon

     As the library community moves in this direction,
     there will be many roles for individuals in our
     profession to fill. Most visible is application
     development; there is a major need for software
     engineering resources to be devoted to creating
     community-owned library systems. This does not in
     any way marginalize those of us who are not
     programmers or database administrators. In the
     open source community there exists a tremendous
     need for exactly the skills librarians have always
     used in making information resources truly
     useful. In particular, systems testing,
     evaluation, and feedback to open source designers
     is welcome and even sought after; documentation
     for open source systems is always needing
     improvement; instructional materials for open
     source products are often lacking.  These are all
     areas in which librarians excel. For the more
     technically minded among us, www.freshmeat.net
     provides constant updates and announcements of
     general open source projects replete with contact
     information for those wishing to participate. For
     all of us, the oss4lib listserv and website will
     highlight additional library-specific
     opportunities as they come around.

     Playing a role in the larger open source community
     will strengthen our ability as professionals and
     service providers to understand how best to shape
     our own systems. Additionally, it might make
     significant inroads in demonstrating how the
     ethics and practice of librarianship is more vital
     to the movement of information than ever
     before. As the software industry shifts to
     appropriately incorporate open source models,
     systems in other industries might even grow to
     utilize products the library community
     creates. Conclusion

     An argument I have already heard against these
     ideas is based on experience: "We tried building
     our own OPAC in the eighties--it was an impossible
     project and we gave it up after a few years
     because it just cost too much." In 1999, however,
     we know that the internet has changed the
     landscape. Because it is so very easy to share
     ideas and software and code using the internet,
     software developers have already found that the
     old way of doing things--particularly building
     monolithic homegrown systems in our own
     institutions--makes no sense anymore. As the open
     source vision and culture continue to mature,
     librarians would be remiss not to find our
     profession playing a major role in that
     culture. For all we have done so far, our online
     systems are not good enough yet. We can do better.

     References

     [APACHE]Apache Server Project

     [BBP] Barry, J, Bilal D, and Penniman WD.
     "The Competitive Struggle,"
     Library Journal, April 1, 1998, p. 43.

     [ER] Raymond, ES. "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"

     [FH] Hecker, F.
     "Setting up Shop: The Business of Open-Source
      Software,"
     Aug 3, 1998.

     [MS] Microsoft analysis of open source

     [GPL]GNU General Public License

     [LINUX]Linux Online

     [MYSQL]MySQL Home Page

     [NYT] Harmon, A and Markoff J.
     "Internal Memo Shows Microsoft Executives'
      Concern Over Free Software",
     New York Times,
     November 3, 1998, Sect. C, pg. 8, col. 1.

     [OSS]Open Source Initiative Home
http://libr.org/Juice/issues/vol4/LJ_4.21.html



http://libr.org/Juice/issues/vol4/LJ_4.21.html
  Library Juice 4:21 - June 6, 2001

     Contents:
    1. Challenging the Information Establishment
    2. NewBreed Librarian ::: JUNE 2001 :::
    3. Library blogs now listed in Libdex
    4. Livejournal Library Lovers Community
    5. Directory of Digitized Collections
    6. Documents relating to the Marriot Boycott
    7. Open Source Library Systems: Getting Started
    8. POETIC JUSTICE! THE ELECTRONIC POETRY SALON FINDS A NEW HOME

     Quote for the week:

     "As to the evil which results from a censorship, it is impossible
     to
     measure it, for it is impossible to tell where it ends."

     - Jeremy Bentham

     Homepage of the week: Bridgid Fennell
     http://www.pinkbunny.net/

     ___________________________________________________________________
     _____top

     1.

     Challenging the Information Establishment: Commercial Interests and
     Ethical Alternatives for Libraries

     Written by Stephen Carney and Geoffrey Harder
     March 22, 2001

     http://plaza.powersurfr.com/geoffrey/papers/access505.htm

     ___________________________________________________________________
     _____top

     2. NewBreed Librarian ::: JUNE 2001 :::

     Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 10:14:56 -0700
     From: Juanita Benedicto <juanitab@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>

     Hey All,

     There's a new issue of NewBreed Librarian up for June.
     http://www.newbreedlibrarian.org/

     FEATURE: Somebody's lit a light under Sandy Berman's bushel!
     INTERVIEW: Hector Escobar, Jr. talks about the Spectrum Initiative
     TECHTALK: Open source software for libraries
     PEOPLE: A librarian discusses his double life
     ASK SUSU: Does it really matter where you get your MLS?

     Colleen and I were just now talking the empowerment of having a
     vehicle
     that allows you to express your feelings/attitudes towards the
     profession -
     and one that allows others, like Sandy, for instance, to express
     theirs.
     Viva freedom of information, access, and independent publishing!

     Juanita

     +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
        Juanita Benedicto         Knight Library
        Reference Librarian       1299 University of Oregon
        (541) 346-1932            Eugene, OR  97403-1299
        (541) 346-3485 fax        juanitab@oregon.uoregon.edu
     +*+*+*+*+   http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~juanitab/   +*+*+*+*+*+
     ___________________________________________________________________
     _____top

     3. Library blogs now listed in Libdex

     Sender: Peter Scott <scottp@moondog.usask.ca>

     I have created a link to library-related weblogs (blogs) on my
     Libdex
     index at:

     http://www.libdex.com

     If I have missed any, please let me know and I'll add them ASAP.
     ___________________________________________________________________
     _____top

     4. Livejournal Library Lovers Community

     http://www.livejournal.com/community/libraries/

     "Join us for a lively discussion of any and all library issues. All
     you need to participate is an abiding interest in libraries. Use
     this
     as a weblog of library-related sites, a repository of references,
     and
     a catalog of anecdotes. Just keep it in the general vicinity of the
     topics and have fun!"

     This page is kind of like a cooperative weblog.

     Livejournal.com is an online diarist's community where people keep
     web
     journals and communicate with each other.
     ___________________________________________________________________
     _____top

     5. Directory of Digitized Collections - http://thoth.bl.uk/

               A database of digitized collections and projects
               worldwide. Information for over 160 entries includes the
               country of origin, collection name, its URL, a brief
               description, type of material, and language. A joint
               project of the United Nations Educational, Scientific,
     and
               Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Memory of the World
               Programme and the International Federation of Library
               Associations and Institutions (IFLA). - dl

     From the Librarians' Index to the Internet - http://lii.org/
     ___________________________________________________________________
     _____top

     6. Documents relating to the Marriot Boycott

     Marriott: Local 2 Response to Ghikas Message
     Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:13:43 -0400
     From: "Maurice J. Freedman" <freedman@wls.lib.ny.us>
     To: ALA Council List <alacoun@ala1.ala.org>, ALA Member Forum
     <member-forum@ala.org>
     Cc: Dave Glaser <glaserhere@aol.com>
     Reply to: freedman@wls.lib.ny.us

     Dear Fellow ALA Members,

     I am forwarding this message to you from Dave Glaser.  Mr. Glaser
     is the
     organizer of the boycott of the San Francisco Marriott Hotel and
     the
     demonstrations by Local 2 of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant
     Employees union in support of the Marriott's workers.

     In the interest of all points of view being brought to your
     attention,
     and also to ensure that the members of the Association are
     presented
     with information about the boycott from the union, as well as other
     sources, I am sending Mr. Glaser's message to the ALA Council and
     ALA
     Member Forum lists.

     As a point of further information, Mary Ghikas's message, May 31,
     2001,
     made no reference to the mass demonstration at the Marriott
     scheduled
     Tuesday (6/19), by Local 2; it will be held at the time of the ALA
     Awards Ceremony and the ALA Inaugural Banquet. This is in addition
     to
     the all day demonstrations scheduled for Friday and Saturday
     (6/15-6/16)
     that were noted in Mary's message.

     To be clear, those attending the Awards Ceremony and Inaugural
     Banquet
     will find that there will be a demonstration and pickets at the
     Marriott.

     I spoke with Mary Ghikas this morning and she told me that the
     information she presented was based on information that ALA lawyers
     prepared after having consulted the NLRB.  I assume that Mary meant
     to
     exclude those instances in her statement in which she refers to
     information provided by the Marriotts spokesperson.

     According to Mr. Glaser some of the information ALAs lawyers
     prepared
     could only have come from the Marriott Corporation.  And further
     much of
     what is stated here are positions that the Marriotts public
     relations
     team have voiced for several years, e.g. this is a matter of work
     rules
     and no other issues, according to Glaser.

     As you will see from Mr. Glasers statement, there are significant
     differences in what Mary presented and what follows.

     My communication here is out of genuine concern that all of the
     information be made available to you so you can make your own
     judgment.

     Best wishes for a wonderful conference.

     /s/ Mitch
     Maurice J. Freedman, MLS, PhD
     President-Elect, 2001-2002, American Library Association

     Mr. Glaser's letter follows:

     I'm sending a quick response because Ms. Ghikas' piece appears to
     be a
     clear and simple presentation of the facts, but it actually
     represents
     what looks much more like the Marriott's point of view.

     - Ms. Ghikas notes Local 2 represents certain San Francisco
     Marriott
     employees;

     FACT: Local 2 represents 925 employees. This is the large majority
     of
     everyone who works in the Marriott, management and hourly combined.

     - Ms. Ghikas states the major issue remaining to be negotiated
     appears
     to be work rules.

     FACTS: The remaining issues include:

     A fair retirement package for the majority of workers, not just the
     20%
     with the highest disposable income (Marriott matches an employee's
     contribution to Profit Sharing, but most housekeepers, dishwashers,
     and
     others, cannot afford to contribute to Profit-Sharing);

     Eligibility for medical and dental coverage;

     Two regular days off each week (even workers who opened the hotel
     11
     years ago don't know until Thursday if they are working on
     Saturday,
     which is the start of the new workweek);

     Contributions to the jointly administered union/management Child
     Care/Elder Care Fund, the Legal Fund, the HIV/AIDS Fund, the
     Education
     Fund and the Vision Care Fund;

     Double time for Servers and Bellpersons vacation pay (since they
     get no
     tips on vacation, double-time pay is significantly less than their
     actual compensation, as most people who have been waiters know);

     Job security in case the operator of the hotel changes;

     Protection from job loss in case of sub-contracting of food and
     beverage
     outlets;

     8 hour shifts for dishwashers;

     .... I could go on and on about the remaining issues. To
     characterize
     these issues as work rules does not do justice to the workers
     concerns.

     Note that every issue listed above is included in the Master
     Contract
     that covers 6,000 other hotel workers at virtually all of the other
     hotels at which ALA attendees will stay in San Francisco.

     - Ms. Ghikas states, there were two isolated incidents in 2000...
     It
     is true we did strike the hotel last year and we did declare the
     official boycott with the Mayor present last Labor Day.  However,
     much
     more has also gone into our fight during this period.

     For example:

     Since Labor Day we have had 4 separate 2-day pickets, each going
     from
     6:00 AM until 10:00 PM. Those conventions picketed were
     significantly
     impacted. The intensity of these pickets will become clear to Ms.
     Ghikas
     and others when they arrive for ALA's Annual Meeting.

     In addition, hundreds of Marriott workers have worn union buttons
     on the
     job during this period. One particular favorite says, Marriott Not
     Above
     The Law. Marriott workers and supporters have gone to more than 100
     local businesses urging them not to return to the Marriott until a
     fair
     contract is signed.

     Also, in this period we have intervened in a number of cities
     considering developing hotels and told the story of Marriott's
     illegal
     campaign to deny us a fair contract in San Francisco. The cities of
     Boston, Denver, Houston, Sacramento, San Jose, and others have
     selected
     other operators over Marriott after hearing our story. They were
     particularly impressed by the National Labor Relations Board charge
     that
     the Marriott attempted to decertify the union.

     - Ms. Ghikas states, the Union has engaged in periodic picketing
     ...
     with approximately 25 union members from other hotels...

     The implication is clear. She is conveying as true the Marriott
     contention that Marriott workers don't participate in the
     picketing.
     (Marriott's attempts to survey the picket lines are one of the many
     charges brought against them by the NLRB.)

     FACT: The simple fact is that more than 400 Marriott workers have
     been
     on the line.  And this is in the face of management's illegal
     terminations and harassment.

     *She stated,  "The Union has informed the Marriott... "

     FACT: The union has not communicated with Marriott about our
     upcoming
     pickets.

     - Extraordinarily, Ms. Ghikas admits she only talked with the
     Marriott's
     spokesperson regarding the labor board charges (she has never
     attempted
     to talk with the union about the NLRB or any other aspect of this
     situation), and this is wrong as well.

     FACT: The Union and the hotel have not settled the benefit issue.

     FACT: The Union never, ever agreed to the partial settlement, which
     we
     later appealed. (The regional office of the NLRB originally
     accepted
     Marriott's partial settlement. It was this acceptance that
     necessitated
     our successful appeal to the General Counsel of the NLRB in
     Washington).  I have worked closely with Mr. Baudler, the
     Prosecuting
     Attorney, representing the General Counsel of the National Labor
     Relations Board, and I am confident that he would agree with this
     characterization of the situation.

     I could go on in this vein for quite some time.

     It's probably best for the moment to make this information
     available
     quickly to America's librarians so they can make their own
     judgments
     based on the union's side as well as the information presented to
     them
     by Ms. Ghikas.

     We invite Ms. Ghikas to speak with us.  We will be glad to provide
     more
     information about any and all of the boycott issues.

     Lastly, ALA members, please bear the following in mind:

     The Mayor of San Francisco and most of the members of the Board of
     Supervisors endorse the boycott and vigorously are campaigning on
     the
     side of Local 2, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees.  The
     Supervisors requested ALA to support the boycott and remove all ALA
     events from the Marriott.

     The San Francisco Public Library Commission passed a resolution
     requesting that ALA move all of its meetings and events out of the
     Marriott.

     The Director of the San Francisco Public Library as well as
     numerous
     California librarians familiar with the boycott will not set foot
     in the
     Marriott "picket line or no picket line" until the Marriott agrees
     to
     the same labor contract that the Hyatts, the Westin, the Sheraton
     Palace, and numerous others all agreed to.  The Marriott workers
     seek no
     more than the workers of those other hotels, and they will accept
     no
     less.

     In your experience, when have you ever seen or heard of a labor
     boycott
     of a hotel regarding its labor practices that was supported by the
     mayor, most of the board of supervisors, the public library board,
     the
     director of the public library, and numerous librarians in the
     region?
     Won't you join these good people and boycott the Marriott, too?

     For more information, please see Local 2's website:

     http://www.sfmarriottboycott.org/

     Yours Truly,

     Dave Glaser, Organizer
     SF Marriott Boycott
     Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees

     .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

     ALA News Release
     For Immediate Release
     June 5, 2001  Coretta Scott King Awards Breakfast cancelled
     Contact: Satia Orange 312-280-4295

     The 2001 Coretta Scott King Awards Breakfast, previously scheduled
     for June
     19, is cancelled. This annual event honors Coretta Scott King Award
     winners,
     who are authors and illustrators of African descent whose
     distinguished
     books promote an understanding and appreciation of the "American
     Dream."

     Sponsored by the Coretta Scott King Awards Task Force of the
     American
     Library Association (ALA) Social Responsibilities Round Table
     (SRRT), the
     announcement was made by task force chair Carole McCollough on
     Monday,
     June 4, 2001. Dr. McCollough's statement follows:

     This decision was made by the task force's leadership due to
     attempts to
     politicize the event. This decision is based on the leadership's
     concern
     that the event was becoming a pawn in a larger, more complex
     political
     agenda.

     The issue of labor unrest at the Marriott was brought to SRRT's
     attention
     soon after the 2001 Midwinter Meeting. At that time, the round
     table
     requested that all SRRT-sponsored programs and meetings not be
     located at
     the San Francisco Marriott. It was learned that the Coretta Scott
     King
     Awards Breakfast was negotiated in 1997 with the Marriott. Any
     changes
     would mean a hefty   cancellation fee for breach of contract.
     Because of
     contractual agreements,  SRRT leadership agreed to an exception for
     the
     awards breakfast.  Subsequently, some members of SRRT attempted to
     negotiate an agreement with San Francisco union organizers that
     there would
     not be pickets on the morning of the breakfast.

     On Friday, June 1, 2001, the task force received a correspondence
     from Mrs.
     Coretta Scott King asking that the breakfast be moved from the
     Marriott.
     In her letter, she confirmed her support and advocacy for the
     efforts of
     working people to obtain fair representation in their quest for
     decent
     wages and adequate working conditions. She acknowledged her
     disturbance
     with the possibility that awardees and breakfast attendees might
     have to
     cross picket lines on June 19. She appealed to the task force to
     move the
     breakfast to another site.

     Although the task force had taken the earlier position of
     resistance to
     pressures to politicize the award event, the fact that the award is
     named
     after a living person, and that the person is Mrs. Martin Luther
     King Jr.,
     they feel     honor-bound to seriously consider her wishes. The
     resulting
     excessive expense to the round table (due to binding financial
     commitments
     to the Marriott) and the obvious inconvenience to those who have
     purchased
     tickets or provided support in other ways is truly regrettable.

     The credibility and integrity of this award and its related
     initiatives
     are the highest concern for the Coretta Scott King Task Force, in
     terms of
     service delivery and impact on young readers. The recognition of
     the
     Coretta Scott King Award winners is the sole focal point of the
     awards
     breakfast. Any attempt to lessen that emphasis on their creative
     accomplishments is unacceptable.

     Tickets may be exchanged for copies of the breakfast program and
     2001 award
     winners' discussion guide at the OLOS booth #342 in the ALA
     exhibits on
     Sunday and Monday, June 17 and 18, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. All
     ticket
     holders will be reimbursed by mail following the ALA's Annual
     Conference
     (June 14-20) in San Francisco.

     Copyright © 2001, American Library Association.
     Last Modified: Tuesday, 05-Jun-2001 15:24:10 CDT

     .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

     [SRRTAC-L:6338] Re: Awards Breakfast Cancelled
     Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 01:26:57 +0200
     From: Al Kagan <akagan@uiuc.edu>
     To: SRRT Action Council <srrtac-l@ala.org>
     Cc: bcalvin@ala.org, freedman@wls.lib.ny.us
     Reply to: srrtac-l@ala.org

     I just have a general comment.  As the letter from Coretta Scott
     King
     shows, the Breakfast is already a political event.  There is no
     question in "politicizing" it or not.  No event can be isolated
     from
     its context.

     I don't think that the characterization in the press release is
     correct that the SRRT leadership agreed to an exception in holding
     the event in the Marriott.  Rather, it was a fait accompli, and no
     matter what was tried and who tried to do it, there seemed to be no
     way out.

     >If anyone would like to comment on this decision, please contact
     me
     >directly at fstoss@acsu.buffalo.edu or to the SRRT list.
     >
     >Fred Stoss
     >SRRT Coordinator

     .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

     [ALACOUN:6020] Documents Under Discussion - SFPL Commission
     Resolution
     Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:29:23 -0400
     From: "Maurice J. Freedman" <freedman@wls.lib.ny.us>
     To: ALA Council List <alacoun@ala1.ala.org>
     Reply to: freedman@wls.lib.ny.us

     In view of the many references to the documents pertaining to the
     Marriott discussion, I am providing copies of them that I had
     transcribed from the FAXED copies I received.  Barring any typos,
     these
     are word-for-word identical to the originals.  The first one in a
     series
     of three messages is from the SFPL Commission.

     Following is a copy of the Resolution passed by the San Francisco
     Public
     Library Commission and sent to Nancy Kranich, ALA President:

     Resolution requesting the American Library Association (ALA) to
     make
     alternative arrangements for its meetings, events and lodging that
     are
     currently scheduled for the San Francisco Marriot Hotel for its
     annual
     conference to be held in June 2001; and supporting the boycott of
     the
     San Francisco Marriot Hotel that is being requested for all ALA
     conference attendees by Local 2, Hotel Employees and Restaurant
     International Employees Union (HEREIU), which represents 925
     workers at
     the Marriot, and Local 790, Service Employee International Union
     (SEIU),
     which represents public library staff in San Francisco and Oakland.

      WHEREAS, the American Library Association has selected the San
     Francisco Marriot Hotel as its convention headquarters hotel for
     its
     annual conference to be held in June 2001; and

      WHEREAS, the San Francisco Marriot Hotel has agreed it would not
     interfere
     with workers rights to unionize when it was given permission by the
     City to build on its land in 1980; and

      WHEREAS, since 1996, when the Local 2 was selected by a majority
     of
     Marriot employees to represent them, over 120 negotiating sessions
     have
     been held and still there is no labor agreement in place; and

      WHEREAS, in September 2000, Local 2 called for a boycott of the
     San
     Francisco Marriot Hotel, which is supported by the Mayor, most of
     the
     Board of Supervisors and other elected officials as well as many
     community and religious leaders; now therefore be it

      RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Marriot Public Library Commission
     requests the American Library Association to make alternative
     arrangements for its meetings, events and lodging that are
     currently
     scheduled for the San Francisco Marriot Hotel for its annual
     conference
     to be held in June 2001; and therefore be it

      RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Public Library Commission
     supports the
     boycott of the San Francisco Marriot Hotel, that is being requested
     by
     HERE International Union, Local 2 and SEIU, Local 790, of all ALA
     conference attendees.

     .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

     [ALACOUN:6021] Documents Under Discussion - SFPL Board of
     Supervisors
     Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:30:33 -0400
     From: "Maurice J. Freedman" <freedman@wls.lib.ny.us>
     To: ALA Council List <alacoun@ala1.ala.org>
     Reply to: freedman@wls.lib.ny.us

     The following letter was mailed by the President of the San
     Francisco
     Board of Supervisors to Nancy Kranich.  Note that 9 of the 11
     supervisors (including the President of the Board) signed the
     letter.
     (The signatures of the other 8 signators were on an attached page.)

     Nancy Kranich, President
     American Library Association
     50 East Huron Street
     Chicago, IL 60611

     Dear Ms. Kranich,

     On behalf of the people of San Francisco, we are delighted that the
     American Library Association (ALA) has chosen to hold its 2001
     convention in our city.  We are confident you will find everything
     you
     need here to have a successful meeting and that your members will
     have a
     memorable time.

     We understand that you are planning to hold some of your activities
     at
     the San Francisco Marriott Hotel.  We feel obliged to inform you
     that
     this hotel is in the midst of a labor dispute that has resulted in
     a
     boycott against it.

     When the Marriott Corporation was originally chosen to develop this
     hotel on city land, it made an agreement stating it would not
     interfere
     with its workers rights to form a union.  Unfortunately, Marriott
     has
     violated that agreement repeatedly.  Although a large majority of
     workers have chosen the union, Marriott has refused to bargain in
     good
     faith for five years and there is still no contract.  Marriott is
     being
     prosecuted by the National Labor Relations Board for nearly 100
     violations of federal labor law.  They may be convicted on many of
     these
     charges before ALAs arrival in June.

     For these reasons, the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees
     Union,
     Local 2, called for a boycott of the downtown Marriott this past
     Labor
     Day.  The hotel is frequently the site of pickets and
     demonstrations.

     The Mayor and most of the Board of Supervisors have endorsed the
     boycott, as have many community and religious leaders.

     We are aware that a convention of this size requires advance
     preparation.  However, we would like to urge you to consider making
     alternative arrangements for your meeting and lodging in San
     Francisco.
     Fortunately, we have a large array of high quality, convenient
     hotels,
     most of which enjoy excellent employee relations.  The San
     Francisco
     Convention and Visitors Bureau web site (www.sfvisitor.org) can
     provide
     you with a list of available facilities.

     Thank you for your consideration and we hope you enjoy your visit
     to San
     Francisco.

     Sincerely,

     Tom Ammiano
     President, Board of Supervisors

     .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

     [MEMBER-FORUM:2371] Documents Under Discussion - Letter from
     Coretta Scott
     King to Nancy Kranich, ALA President
     Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:30:45 -0400
     From: "Maurice J. Freedman" <freedman@wls.lib.ny.us>
     To: ALA Council <alacoun@ala.org>, ALA Member Forum
     <member-forum@ala.org>

     The following is a transcription of the FAXED copy I received of
     the
     letter from Coretta Scott King to Nancy Kranich, ALA President.

     June 1, 2001

     Ms. Nancy Kranich, President
     American Library Association
     50 East Huron
     Chicago, IL 60611

     Fax: (212) 995-4942

     Dear Ms. Kranich,

        I write to you to express my deep concern about The American
     Library
     Associations decision to hold the Coretta Scott King Awards
     Breakfast
     at the San Francisco Marriot Hotel.

        As you know, The San Francisco Marriot Hotel is being boycotted
     by a
     broad range of labor unions, human rights and respected community
     leaders, as a result of the hotel managements refusal to bargain in
     good faith with the union.  After reviewing materials about the
     boycott
     and workers grievances, I can only conclude that the boycott is
     justified.

        I have always been proud of the Coretta Scott King Book Awards,
     which
     affirm the values of compassion, social justice and humanitarian
     concerns.  However, I also have long supported the struggles of
     working
     people for union representation, decent wages and working
     conditions,
     and the thought of recipients of the Awards having to cross a
     picket
     line of working people to receive their honors is very disturbing
     to
     me.  The Award also commemorates the life and work of my husband,
     Martin Luther King, Jr. who gave his life in support of a labor
     struggle
     for dignity and justice.  In keeping with this spirit, I therefore
     appeal to you to move the Coretta Scott King Awards Breakfast to a
     more
     acceptable venue.

        I value my relationship with the American Library Association
     and I
     applaud the great work you have been doing to promote quality
     childrens
     literature.  My sincerest hope is that you will comply with my
     request,
     protect the integrity of the Awards and support the legitimate
     aspirations of Marriot workers for justice and dignity on the job.
      I
     thank you for considering my appeal and I look forward to your
     response.

     Sincerely,

     Coretta Scott King

     cc: Carole McCollough, Task Force Chair
     cc: Dave Glaser, Lead Organizer, [SF] Marriot Campaign

     .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

     Sanford Berman's letter announcing his resignation from SRRT and
     PLG will
     be in next week's Juice, along with some discussion. It relates to
     a
     planned picket at the Coretta Scott King Breakfast - singled out
     from
     among more deserving events for dramatic effect - by the union. I
     will say
     in advance that I don't like Sandy's decision, but I understand it.
     In my
     opinion, once the CSK Breakfast was stuck with the Marriot for a
     location,
     it was a bad situation from which there was no way out. There were
     different possible strategies for dealing with it, but all of them
     were
     very costly in one way or another. (ALA apparently would not pay
     the
     $20-40,000 to have the event moved to another location.) Commentary
     and
     details next week.
     ___________________________________________________________________
     _____top

     7. Open Source Library Systems: Getting Started

     (c) 1999 by Dan Chudnov

     note: a significantly edited version of this article appeared in
     the August
     1, 1999 issue of Library Journal. You might prefer their edited
     version to
     this version. You are free to reproduce the text of this version
     for any
     purpose and in any format, provided that you reproduce it in its
     entirety
     (including this notice) and refer to the url from which it is
     available:
     http://oss4lib.org/readings/oss4lib-getting-started.php

     Introduction

     The biggest news in the software industry in recent months is open
     source.
     Every week in the technology news we can read about IBM or Oracle
     or
     Netscape or Corel announcing plans to release flagship products as
     open
     source or a version of these products that runs on an open source
     operating
     system such as Linux. In its defense against the Department of
     Justice,
     Microsoft has pointed to Linux and its growing market share as
     evidence
     that Microsoft cannot exert unfair monopoly power over the software
     industry. Dozens of new open source products along with regular
     news of
     upgrades, bug fixes, and innovative new features for these products
     are
     announced every day at web sites followed by thousands.

     The vibe these related events and activities send out is one of
     fundamental
     change in the software industry, change that alters the rules of
     how to
     make software--and how to make money selling software. What is all
     the
     noise about, and what does it mean for libraries? Open Source: What
     it is
     and Why it Works

     If you've ever used the internet, you've used open source software.
     Many of
     the servers and applications running on machines throughout the
     wired world
     rely on software created using the open source process. Examples of
     such
     software are Apache, the most widely used web server in the world,
     and
     sendmail, "the backbone of the Internet's email server hardware."
     [TOR]
     Open source means several things:

     Open source software is typically created and maintained by
     developers
     crossing institutional and national boundaries, collaborating by
     using
     internet-based communications and development tools;

     Products are typically a certain kind of "free", often through a
     license
     that specifies that applications and source code (the programming
     instructions written to create the applications) are free to use,
     modify,
     and redistribute as long as all uses, modifications, and
     redistributions
     are similarly licensed; [GPL]

     Successful applications tend to be developed more quickly and with
     better
     responsiveness to the needs of users who can readily use and
     evaluate open
     source applications because they are free;

     Quality, not profit, drives open source developers who take
     personal pride
     in seeing their working solutions adopted;

     Intellectual property rights to open source software belong to
     everyone who
     helps build it or simply uses it, not just the vendor or
     institution who
     created or sold the software.

     More succinctly, from the definition at www.opensource.org/: "Open
     source
     promotes software reliability and quality by supporting independent
     peer
     review and rapid evolution of source code. To be certified as open
     source,
     the license of a program must guarantee the right to read,
     redistribute,
     modify, and use it freely." [OSS]

     Software peer review is much like the peer review process in
     research. Peer
     review bestows a degree of validity upon the quality of research.
     Publications with a high "trust factor" contribute ideas in
     published works
     to the knowledge base of the entire communities they serve.

     It is the same for software. As described in the seminal open
     source work,
     "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric Raymond, author of the
     popular email
     program fetchmail, the debugging process can move faster when more
     individuals have both access to code and an environment in which
     constructive criticism is roundly welcomed. [ER] This leads to
     extremely
     rapid improvements in software and a growing sense of community
     ownership
     of an open source application. The feeling of community ownership
     strengthens over time because each new participant in the evolution
     of a
     particular application-- as a programmer, tester, or user--adds
     their own
     sense of ownership to the growing community pool because they are
     truly
     owners of the software. This community effect seems similar to the
     network
     effect seen across the internet, whereby each additional internet
     user adds
     value to all the other users (simply because each new user means
     there are
     more people with whom everyone else might communicate). For open
     source
     products which grow to be viable alternatives to closed-source
     vendor
     offerings, this growing community ownership begins to exert
     pressure on the
     vendors to join in. [NYT]

     This tendency shares a striking similarity to the economic value of
     libraries. A library gives any individual member of the community
     it serves
     access to a far richer range of materials than what that individual
     might
     gather alone. At an extremely low marginal cost to each citizen
     expensive
     reference works, new hardcover texts, old journals, historical
     documents
     and even meeting rooms might be available through a local library.
     The
     library building, its collections, and its staff are
     infrastructure. This
     infrastructure serves as a kind of community monopoly in a local
     market for
     the provision of information. Instead of reaping monopoly profits
     for
     financial gain, however, a library returns the benefits of its
     monopoly to
     individual users. The costs of maintaining this monopoly are borne
     by the
     very community which holds the monopoly. To the extent which this
     model
     works in a given community, a library is a natural yet amenable
     monopolistic force. If this sounds mistaken, consider whether your
     community has libraries which compete or cooperate. Library
     Software Today

     No software is perfect. Office suites and image editors are pretty
     good;
     missile defense systems are, for all we know, appropriately
     effective;
     search engines could use improvement but usually get the job done.
     While
     there is constant innovation in library software, for many of us
     online
     catalog systems mean a clunky old text interface that often is less
     effective than browsing stacks. Often, this is due to the obstacles
     we face
     in managing legacy systems; new systems might be vastly improved,
     but we
     are slow to upgrade when we consider the costs of migrating data,
     staff
     retraining, systems support, and on and on. Sometimes, new versions
     of
     systems we currently use are just not good enough to warrant making
     a
     switch.

     This is not surprising. The library community is largely made up of
     not-for-profit, publicly funded agencies which hardly command a
     major voice
     in today's high tech information industry. As such, there is not an
     enormous market niche for software vendors to fill our small demand
     for
     systems. Indeed the 1997 estimated library systems revenue was only
     $470
     million, with the largest vendor earning $60 million. [BBP] Because
     even
     the most successful vendors are very small relative to the
     Microsofts of
     this world (and because libraries cannot compete against industry
     salary
     levels), there are relatively few software developers available to
     build
     library applications, and therefore a relatively small community
     pool of
     software talent.

     What are we left with? Some good systems, some bad. Few systems
     truly serve
     the access needs of all of our users, failing to meet a
     goal--access for
     everyone--that most public libraries strive to achieve at more
     fundamental
     levels of service. Because libraries are community resources, we
     tend to be
     quite liberal about intellectual and physical access issues,
     including
     support of freedom of speech and ADA-related physical plant
     modifications.
     At the same time, librarians are very conservative about
     collections and
     data (remember the difficult issues when you last weeded?). Is it
     not odd,
     then, that market forces lead us to be extremely conservative about
     online
     systems software? After all, online systems are no less about
     access to
     information than having an auto-open front door or an elevator in a
     library
     building.

     We read of exciting technological innovations in library-related
     systems.
     Innovations in advanced user interfaces and metadata-enabled
     retrieval
     environments and other areas have the potential to make online
     access more
     and more seamless and easy to use. Our systems, though, are too
     old--or not
     standardized enough, or too familiar to change--to take advantage
     of these
     advances. And creative ideas from exciting research seems not to
     make
     headway in real systems.

     Libraries, if they indeed hold the kind of community monopoly
     described
     above, might do well to enhance their services by leveraging
     community-owned information systems--which open source seems to
     promise.
     Open Source and Libraries

     How could open source improve library services? First, open source
     systems,
     when licensed in the typical "general license" manner, cost nothing
     (or
     next to nothing) to use--whether they have one or one thousand
     users.
     Although the costs of implementing and supporting the systems on
     which
     software runs might not change, imagine removing the purchase price
     of a
     new search interface (or ILL tool, or circulation module, etc.)
     from your
     budget for next year. Rather than spending thousands on systems,
     such funds
     might be reallocated for training, hiring, or support needs, areas
     where
     libraries tend toward chronic shortfalls.

     Second, open source product support is not locked in to a single
     vendor.
     The community of developers for a particular open source product
     tends to
     be a powerful support structure for Linux and other products
     because of the
     pride in ownership described above. Also, anyone can go into
     business to
     provide support for software for which the very source code is
     freely
     available. Thus even if a library buys an open source system from
     one
     vendor, it might choose down the road to buy technical support from
     another
     company--or to arrange for technical support from a third-party at
     the time
     of purchase. On top of this flexibility, any library with technical
     staff
     capable of understanding source code might find that its own staff
     might
     provide better internal support because the staff could have a
     better
     understanding of how the systems work.

     Third, the entire library community might share the responsibility
     of
     solving information systems accessibility issues. Few systems
     vendors make
     a profit by focusing their products on serving the needs of users
     who
     cannot operate in the windows/icons/menus/pointer world. If
     developers
     building systems for the vision impaired and other user groups
     requiring
     alternative access environments were to cooperate on creating a
     shared base
     of user interfaces, these shared solutions might be freely built
     into
     systems around the world far more rapidly and successfully than
     ever
     before.A Three-Step Process

     If you are still reading, you probably suspect something here might
     be a
     good idea. You might even want to help make ideas discussed above
     happen.
     Where to begin? Understand the Phenomenon

     Axiomatic business notions have shown weaknesses throughout the
     information
     age; the utility of the internet for knowledge sharing demanded
     rethinking
     of what constitutes an information product. If nothing else, it is
     important for the international community of librarians to
     understand the
     open source phenomenon as part of the technology-driven shift in
     our
     understanding of the nature of information. Because the ethos and
     style of
     the open source initiative is so akin to the traditions of
     librarianship we
     hold at the core of our professionalism, we should find within open
     source
     the appropriate points of entry for the similar service and
     resource-sharing objectives we choose to achieve every day.

     The seminal works on open source are mostly technical, but they
     provide an
     envigorating view of the current state of software engineering. All
     are
     available on the internet, and they form a core of knowledge that
     might one
     day be fundamental to our discipline. "The Cathedral and the
     Bazaar," by
     Eric Raymond [ER], is widely cited as the pivotal tome describing
     the
     technical and social processes open source entails. "The
     Open-Source
     Revolution," by Tim O'Reilly [TOR], founder of O'Reilly and
     Associates,
     Inc., a highly respected publisher of pragmatic computer-related
     titles,
     gives a broader view of the social phenomenon, in particular
     relating open
     source software development to the scientific method. Finally,
     www.opensource.org is a central point of focus for the Open Source
     Initiative. It is led in part by Mr. Raymond and appeals to both
     the
     technical and non-technical sides of the community.

     To foster communication regarding open source systems in libraries,
     we have
     created a web site, www.med.yale.edu/library/oss4lib, and a
     listserv,
     oss4lib@biomed.med.yale.edu. They are intended as forums for
     announcement,
     discussion, and sharing of broad information; look for instructions
     on how
     to join the list along with a list of current open source projects
     for
     libraries the oss4lib site.Use Open Source Systems Where You Are

     Armed with understanding, we can find opportunities to leverage
     existing
     open source systems in our own institutions. The Linux operating
     system
     [LINUX], Apache web server [APACHE], and MySQL database [MYSQL]
     form a
     powerful, free platform for building online systems. Consider the
     value of
     these and other open source systems when making design and purchase
     decisions at your institution; you might find tremendous savings
     and
     increased product performance at the same time.

     Beyond merely using open source products, however, we must create
     them. Are
     you already working on any new applications at your institution?
     Perhaps
     you've put a year or two into a homegrown search interface, or an
     online
     reference services tool, or a data model and retrieval code for an
     image
     archive. Is there a good reason why you wouldn't want to share that
     work?
     For those of you who realize that someone else might benefit from
     what
     you've done--and that you might benefit from the ability to share
     in the
     work of others--consider thoroughly the implications of releasing
     your code
     under an open source license. [FH] If the benefits outweigh the
     negatives,
     get started sanitizing and documenting your code as well as you
     can, and
     set it free.

     Another ideal opportunity at this stage is for library and
     information
     science researchers to open their projects up for the entire
     community to
     review and develop as appropriate. Grant-funded systems builders
     might find
     an afterlife for their work by releasing their source. Faculty
     might design
     courses around building a retrieval system or improving an existing
     open
     source tool. Indeed this model is already widely used by computer
     science
     professors--at Yale, for instance, undergraduate students might
     work on
     aspects of the Linux kernel in their Operating Systems course. Grow
     the
     Phenomenon

     As the library community moves in this direction, there will be
     many roles
     for individuals in our profession to fill. Most visible is
     application
     development; there is a major need for software engineering
     resources to be
     devoted to creating community-owned library systems. This does not
     in any
     way marginalize those of us who are not programmers or database
     administrators. In the open source community there exists a
     tremendous need
     for exactly the skills librarians have always used in making
     information
     resources truly useful. In particular, systems testing, evaluation,
     and
     feedback to open source designers is welcome and even sought after;
     documentation for open source systems is always needing
     improvement;
     instructional materials for open source products are often lacking.
     These
     are all areas in which librarians excel. For the more technically
     minded
     among us, www.freshmeat.net provides constant updates and
     announcements of
     general open source projects replete with contact information for
     those
     wishing to participate. For all of us, the oss4lib listserv and
     website
     will highlight additional library-specific opportunities as they
     come
     around.

     Playing a role in the larger open source community will strengthen
     our
     ability as professionals and service providers to understand how
     best to
     shape our own systems. Additionally, it might make significant
     inroads in
     demonstrating how the ethics and practice of librarianship is more
     vital to
     the movement of information than ever before. As the software
     industry
     shifts to appropriately incorporate open source models, systems in
     other
     industries might even grow to utilize products the library
     community
     creates. Conclusion

     An argument I have already heard against these ideas is based on
     experience: "We tried building our own OPAC in the eighties--it was
     an
     impossible project and we gave it up after a few years because it
     just cost
     too much." In 1999, however, we know that the internet has changed
     the
     landscape. Because it is so very easy to share ideas and software
     and code
     using the internet, software developers have already found that the
     old way
     of doing things--particularly building monolithic homegrown systems
     in our
     own institutions--makes no sense anymore. As the open source vision
     and
     culture continue to mature, librarians would be remiss not to find
     our
     profession playing a major role in that culture. For all we have
     done so
     far, our online systems are not good enough yet. We can do better.

     References

     [APACHE]Apache Server Project
     [BBP] Barry, J, Bilal D, and Penniman WD. "The Competitive
     Struggle,"
     Library Journal, April 1, 1998, p. 43.
     [ER] Raymond, ES. "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"
     [FH] Hecker, F. "Setting up Shop: The Business of Open-Source
     Software,"
     Aug 3, 1998. [MS] Microsoft analysis of open source
     [GPL]GNU General Public License
     [LINUX]Linux Online
     [MYSQL]MySQL Home Page
     [NYT] Harmon, A and Markoff J. "Internal Memo Shows Microsoft
     Executives'
     Concern Over Free Software", New York Times, November 3, 1998,
     Sect. C, pg.
     8, col. 1.
     [OSS]Open Source Initiative Home
     ___________________________________________________________________
     _____top

     8. POETIC JUSTICE! THE ELECTRONIC POETRY SALON FINDS A NEW HOME

     In solidarity with the unions boycotting the Marriott, the
     Electronic
     Poetry Salon has been moved to Auditorium C of Golden Gate
     University.
     The Salon will feature a wide diversity of projects by several
     poets and
     organizations ranging from fairly traditional electronic zines to
     Haiku
     via cellphone to the latest technology in "sending skins" of
     interactive
     poetry performances on the Internet. Come join us from 2-4 on
     Sunday, June
     17th. It may be Father's Day, but it will be a Mother of a show!
     For more information on the poets and a map to the conveniently
     located
     Golden Gate University please visit our website  at
     http://www.bloomingtonlibrary.org/epoetry/

     Please feel free to forward this message as appropriate.

     Jim Dwyer
     aka, The Rev. Junkyard Moondog
     530-893-0779
     "I must say I like variety myself; some folks washes Monday an'
     irons
     Tuesday the whole year round, even when the circus is goin' by!"
     Mrs. Almira Todd, from Country of the Pointed Firs by Sarah Orne
     Jewett
     (1896)
     ___________________________________________________________________
     _____top

     L I B R A R Y   J U I C E

     | http://libr.org/Juice/
     |
     | Library Juice is supported by a voluntary subscription
     | fee of $10 per year, variable based on ability and
     | desire to pay.  You may send a check payable in US funds
     | to Rory Litwin, at PO Box 720511, San Jose, CA  95172
     |
     | Original material and added value in Library Juice
     | is copyright-free; beyond that the publisher makes
     | no guarantees.  Library Juice is a free weekly
     | publication edited and published by Rory Litwin.
     | Original senders are credited wherever possible;
     | opinions are theirs.  If you are the author of some
     | email in Library Juice which you want removed from
     | the web, please write to me and I will remove it.
     |
     | Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
     |
     | Rory@libr.org
http://libr.org/Juice/issues/vol4/LJ_4.21.html

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>