use and impact of open source softwares (oss)

USE AND IMPACT OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARES (OSS)

AMONG SELECTED ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE

LIBRARIES: A CRITICAL STUDY OF INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO

BHARATI VIDYAPEETH DEEMED UNIVERSITY, PUNE (UNDER THE FACUTLY OF ARTS, SOCIAL SCIENCES AND COMMERCE)

FOR THE AWARD OF DEGREE DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

SUBMITTED BY PANGAL ZUBER ABDUL MAJEED

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF DR. V.S. MUGADE

DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE BHARATI VIDYAPEETH DEEMED UNIVERSITY’S

YASHWANTRAO MOHITE COLLEGE OF ARTS, SOCIAL SCIENCE & COMMERCE

PUNE 411038

July 2016

CONTENTS

Chapter No. Title Page No.

Declaration by the Candidate i

Certification of the Guide ii

Certification of the Principal iii

Acknowledgment iv

Dedication vi

Dr. S.R. Ranganathan Photograph: Father of Library and Information Science in India and his five laws vii

Contents viii

List of Tables xiii

List of Figures xix

List of Images xxii

Abbreviations xxiii

Chapter 1 : Introduction 1 - 20

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Background of the Study 2

1.3 Ten Decrees of OSS 3

1.4 Open Source Software : An Introduction 5

1.4.1 What is FS / OSS / FOSS / FLOSS 6

1.5 Role of OSS in Libraries 6

1.6 Need of the Study 7

1.7 Aim and Purpose of the Study 8

1.8 Objectives of the Study 9

1.9 Hypotheses of the Study 9

1.10 Research Methodology 10

1.10.1 Universe of Population 10

1.10.2 Sampling 11

1.10.3 Data Collection Technique 14

1.10.4 Data Analysis Technique 15

1.11 Scope and Limitations of the study 15

VIII


1.12 Conspectus 16

References 17

Chapter 2 : Review of Literature 21- 57

2.1 Introduction 21

2.2 Review of Literature 21

2.2.1 Use of ICT in Libraries 21

2.2.2 Role of Software in Automation and Functioning of Libraries 28

2.2.3 Open Source Software basics 34

2.2.4 Open Source Software used in Academic and Research Libraries

41

2.2.5 Published Theses and Special Issues on Open Source Software 45

Summary of the Chapter 48

References 50

Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic and Research Libraries 58 - 83

3.1 Introduction 58

3.2 Historical Background of Ancient Libraries 58

3.3 Transformation of Libraries from Traditional to Cloud 62

3.4 Information and Communication Technology 67

3.5 Application of ICT in Libraries 70

3.6 Application of the Internet in Libraries 80

Summary 81

References

82

Chapter 4: Open Source Software : Genesis, Technology and Library Information Science Perspective

84 - 117

4.1 Introduction 84

4.2 Meaning, Definition and Characteristics Of OSS 84

4.3 Genesis , Development and Historical Background Of OSS 89

4.4 Free Software Versus Open Source Software 97

4.5 Open Source Software and Intellectual Property 98

IX


4.6 Free / Open Source Software Licenses 101

4.7 Software and its Types 106

4.8 OSS Perspective in Library Information Science 108

Summary 114

References 115

Chapter 5: Functional OSS for Libraries : An Overview 118 - 176

5.1 Introduction 118

5.2 OSS on the World Wide Web 118

5.3 Overview of OSS 119

5.3.1 Library Management / Automation / Integrated Library System 119

5.3.2 Digital Library / Institutional Repository 126

5.3.3 Web Development / Content / Knowledge Management System 132

5.3.4 Citation/ Reference/ Bibliography Management System 136

5.3.5 Journal Management/ Publishing System 137

5.3.6 Electronic Journal Archiving 138

5.3.7 Meta Searching / Federated Searching 139

5.38 E- Learning Management System 141

5.3.9 Office Suite 142

5.3.10 Desktop Publishing 143

5.3.11 Media Player / Flash Media Player 145

5.3.12 Web Browser 146

5.3.13 Scientific Computation Package for Numerical Computations 147

5.3.14 Operating System 148

5.3.15 Server Operating System 150

5.3.16 Cloud Computing Operating Systems 152

5.3.17 Web Conferencing 154

5.3.18 Plagiarism 155

5.3.19 Optical Character Recognition (OCR) 156

5.3.20 Anti-Virus 158

5.4 Other Useful Open Source Software 159

X


5.4.1 Next Generation OPAC 159

5.4.2 Document Management System 160

5.4.3 PDF Document Editing Software 160

5.4.4 Draw 161

5.4.5 Image Editing and Graphic Designing 161

5.4.6 Audio Video Recording of Talks and Editing 162

5.4.7 Web Downloading 163

5.4.8 Wiki Management 163

5.4.9 Mobile Operating System 164

5.4.10 Web Programming / Language / Server / Database Management 164

5.4.11 Instant Messaging 165

5.4.12 Screen Casting 165

5.4.13 Online Survey 166

5.4.14 Portable Apps 166

5.4.15 Social Networking 167

5.4.16 Project Management 168

5.4.17 Library Apps 168

5.4.18 Virtual Machine 169

5.4.19 Animation and Computer Graphics 169

5.4.20 e-Mail Server 170

5.4.21 Search Engine 170

5.4.22 Workflow / Forms and Case Management 171

5.4.23 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) 172

Summary 173

References 174

Chapter 6: National and International Organizational Initiatives and Government Strategies for Open Source Software

177 -210


6.2 Open Source Software (OSS) Survey Agencies 177

6.3 National Organizations Open Source Software Initiative 182

XI

Chapter No Title Page No.

6.4 International Organizations Open Source Software Initiative 189

6.5 National And International Open Source Software Government Strategies And Policies

192

Summary 204

References 206

Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Interpretation 211 - 337

Introduction 211

7.1 Division of the Questionnaire 211

Part - 1 General Information Based Common Questions 212

Part - 2 Library Automation and Software Selection 216

Part – 3 Libraries using Commercial, In-house Developed, Customized, Freeware, Shareware and Public Domain Software

276

Part – 4 Libraries using Open Source Software (OSS) 287

Part – 5 Libraries using both Open Source Software and Commercial, In-house Developed, Customized, Freeware, Shareware, etc.

315

Chapter 8 : Findings, Suggestions and Conclusion 338 - 359


8.2.1 Findings based on Review of Literature 338

8.2.2 Findings based on Data Analysis and Interpretations 340

8.2.3 Findings based on Librarians’ view 349

8.2.4 From the Researcher’s Desk 350

8.2.5 Findings based on Objectives of the study 351

8.3 Suggestions 352

8.4 Areas for further Research 357

Summary 358

Appendices

Appendix – 1 : Bibliography 360-378

Appendix -- 2 : Questionnaire 379-408

Appendix – 3 : Useful OSS for libraries 409-415

Appendix – 4 : Abstract of Articles Published in Journal/ Books 416-418

XII

Tables

Table No. Table Name Page No.

1.1 Academic and Research Institutions in India 11

1.2 Academic and Research Libraries in India 12

1.3 Academic and Research Libraries selected for study 13

4.1 Comparison of Open Source Software versus Closed Source Software

113

5.1 Koha Technical Specification 121

5.2 NewGenLib Technical Specification 122

5.3 Evergreen Technical Specification 124

5.4 Openbiblio Technical Specification 125

5.5 ABCD Technical Specification 126

5.6 DSpace Technical Specification 127

5.7 Greeenstone Digital Library Technical Specification 128

5.8 Ganesha Digital Library Technical Specification 129

5.9 EPrints Technical Specification 130

5.10 Fedora Technical Specification 132

5.11 Joomla Technical Specification 133

5.12 Drupal Technical Specification 134

5.13 Wordpress Technical Specification 135

5.14 Zotero Technical Specification 137

5.15 Open Journal System Technical Specification 138

5.16 LOCKSS Technical Specification 139

5.17 Pazpar2 Technical Specification 140

5.18 Moodle Technical Specification 142

5.19 LiberOffice Technical Specification 143

5.20 Scibus Technical Specification 144

5.21 VLC Technical Details 145

5.22 Web Browser Technical Specification 146

5.23 Scilab Technical Specification 148

5.24 Ubuntu Technical Specification 149

XIII


5.25 RedHat Enterprise Linux Technical Specification 151

5.26 Glide Technical Specification 153

5.27 WebHuddle Technical Specification 154

5.28 Plaggie1.1 Technical Specification 156

5.29 Tesseract Technical Specification 157

5.30 AppArmor Anti-Virus Technical Specification 158

5.31 VuFind Technical Specification 159

5.32 LogicalDOC Technical Specification 160

5.33 PDFedit Technical Specification 160

5.34 Draw Technical Specification 161

5.35 GIMP Technical Specification 161

5.36 Audacity Technical Specification 162

5.37 HTTrack Technical Specification 162

5.38 MediaWiki Technical Specification 163

5.39 Android Technical Specification 163

5.40 PHP Technical Specification 164

5.41 Pidgin Technical Specification 165

5.42 CamStudio Technical Specification 165

5.43 LimeSurvey Technical Specification 166

5.44 PortableApps Technical Specification 166

5.45 BuddyPress Technical Specification 167

5.46 dotProject Technical Specification 167

5.47 E-Book Library Management Calibre Technical Specification 168

5.48 VirtualBox Technical Specification 169

5.49 Blender Technical Specification 169

5.50 Zarafa Technical Specification 170

5.51 Lucene/ Solr Technical Specification 170

5.52 Nuxeo (Case Management) Technical Specification 171

5.53 FoxOpen (Workflow) Technical Specification 171

5.54 Odoo (OpenERP) Technical Specification 172

XIV


6.1 Open Source Software (OSS) Initiatives Continental Distribution

180

6.2 Percentage of Comparison of Approved Initiatives 2001 to 2009

181

6.3 FOSS Projects under ITEA Division, R&D in IT Group 193


7.2 Status of Institutes/ Universities/ Centers, selected for study 212

7.2.1 Responses Received from different Institutes 213

7.3 Nature of the Academic and Research Center 214

7.4 Staff Qualification 215

7.5 Communication Technologies 216

7.6 Library Automation 216

7.7 Status of Automation 217

7.8 Types of Software 218

7.9 Operating System 219

7.10 Software currently use in Library 219

7.11 Cost benefits of software selected for Library 225

7.12 Open Source Software (OSS) without Licensing Fees 226

7.13.1 Selection of Library Management Software 227

7.13.2 Selection of Digital Library/ Institutional Repository Software 228

7.13.3 Selection of Web / Content/ Knowledge Management System 230

7.13.4 Selection of Citation/ Reference/ Bibliography/ Management Software

231

7.13.5 Selection of Journal Management/ Publishing Software 232

7.13.6 Selection of Electronic Journal Archiving 233

7.13.7 Selection of Meta Searching/ Federated Searching 234

7.13.8 Selection of e-Learning Management System 235

7.13.9 Selection of Office Suite 236

7.13.10 Selection for Desktop Publishing 237

7.13.11 Selection of Media Player/ Flash Media Player 238

7.13.12 Selection for Web Browser Software 239

XV


7.13.13 Selection for Scientific Computation Package for Numerical Computations Software

240

7.13.14 Selection for Operating System Software 241

7.13.15 Selection for Server Operating System Software 242

7.13.16 Selection for Cloud Computing Operating System Software 243

7.13.17 Selection for Web Conferencing Software 244

7.13.18 Selection of Plagiarism Software 245

7.13.19 Selection for Optical Character Recognition (OCR) Software 246

7.13.20 Selection for Anti-Virus Software 247

7.14.1 Selection of Next Generation OPAC’s software 248

7.14.2 Selection for Document Management System software 249

7.14.3 Selection of PDF Document Editing Software 250

7.14.4 Selection for Drawing Software 251

7.14.5 Selection for Image Editing and Graphics Designing Software 252

7.14.6 Selection for Audio Video Recording of talks and Editing Software

253

7.14.7 Selection for Web Downloading Software 254

7.14.8 Selection for Wiki Management 255

7.14.9 Selection for Mobile Operating System Software 256

7.14.10 Selection of Web Programming / Language/ Server / Database Management Software

257

7.14.11 Selection for Instant Messaging Software 258

7.14.12 Selection for Screen Casting Software 259

7.14.13 Selection of Online Survey 260

7.14.14 Selection for Portable Apps 261

7.14.15 Selection of Social Networking Software 262

7.14.16 Selection of Project Management 263

7.14.17 Selection of Library Apps Software 264

7.14.18 Selection of Virtual Machine Software 265

7.14.19 Selection of Animation and Computer Graphics Software 266

7.14.20 Selection of e-mail Server 267

XVI


7.14.21 Selection of Search Engine Software 268

7.14.22 Selection of Workflow, Forms and Case Management Software

269

7.14.23 Selection of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Software 270

7.15 Adoption of other and Known Open Source Software (OSS) 271

7.16.1 Test Statistics 272

7.16.2 Ranks and Mean Ranks 273

7. 17.1 Test Statistics 274

7.17.2 Rank and Mean Rank 275

7.18 Software Selection Criteria 276

7.19 Satisfaction with the Selection 277

7.20 Reasons for Software Selection (Yes) 278

7.21 Non Satisfaction with the Selection (No) 278

7.22 Facts about Open Source Software (OSS) 279

7.23 Workshop/ Hands on Practice Attended 280

7.24 Impact after Workshop 281

7.25 Opinion about OSS replaces the Commercial and etc. Software in Future

281

7.26 Improvements in Commercial Software 282

7. 27.1 Test Statistics 284

7. 27.2 Rank and Mean Rank 284





7.30 Open Source Software (OSS) Operating System use in Library 292

7.31 Competency with Open Source Software (OSS) Programming Language

296



7.33 Mode of Acquiring Knowledge about Open Source Software (OSS)

304

XVII


7.34 Promotional Activity organized for awareness about Open Source Software (OSS)

304

7.35 Institute’s role for propagating Open Source Software (OSS) 305

7.36 Management of Problems using Open Source Software (OSS) 306





7.39 Criteria for Software Selection 315

7.40 Software Selection Satisfaction 316

7.41 Reasons for Software Selection (Yes) 316

7.42 Reasons for Software Selection (No) 317


7.44 Impact After Workshop Attended 318



7.46 Management of Problems using Open Source Software (OSS) 321





7.49 Opinions about OSS replace the Commercial and etc. Software

331

7.50 Reasons for using both Open Source Software (OSS) and Commercial and etc. software

331



7.52 Sign Binomial Test 336

7.53 Sign Binomial Test 337

XVIII

Figures

Figure No. Figure Name Page No.

6.1 Overview of the extent of Open Source Software development around the world

179

6.2 Regional Distribution 181

6.3 Percentage of Open Source Software (OSS) Initiative by Time 182

6.4 FOSS Vision (Source: http://deity.gov.in/content/list-rd-projects)

194

7.1 Responses Received from Different Institutes 213

7.2 Nature of the Academic and Research Centers 214

7.3 Library Automation 217

7.4 Status of Automation 217

7.5 Types of Software 218

7.6 Cost Benefits of Software Selected for Library 226

7.7 Open Source Software (OSS) without Licensing Fees 227

7.8 Selection of Library Management Software 228

7.9 Selection of Digital Library/ Institutional Repository Software 229

7.10 Selection of Web Development/ Content/ Knowledge Management System

230

7.11 Selection of Citation/ Reference/ Bibliography/ Management Software

231

7.12 Selection of Journal Management/ Publishing Software 232

7.13 Selection of Electronic Journal Archiving 233

7.14 Selection of Meta Searching/ Federated Searching 234

7.15 Selection of e-Learning Management System 235

7.16 Selection of Office Suite 236

7.17 Selection of Desktop Publishing 237

7.18 Selection of Media Player/ Flash Media Player 238

7.19 Selection for Web Browser Software 239

7.20 Selection for Scientific Computation Package for Numerical Computations Software

240

7.21 Selection for Operating System Software 241

7.22 Selection for Server Operating System Software 242

XIX


7.23 Selection for Cloud Computing Operating System Software 243

7.24 Selection for Web Conferencing Software 244

7.25 Selection of Plagiarism Software 245

7.26 Selection for Optical Character Recognition (OCR) Software 246

7.27 Selection for Anti-Virus Software 247

7.28 Selection of Next Generation OPAC’s software 248

7.29 Selection for Document Management System software 249

7.30 Selection of . PDF Document Editing Software 250

7.31 Selection for Drawing Software 251

7.32 Selection for Image Editing and Graphics Designing Software 252

7.33 Selection for . Audio Video Recording of talks and Editing Software

253

7.34 Selection for Web Downloading Software 254

7.35 Selection of Wiki Management 255

7.36 Selection for Mobile Operating System Software 256

7.37 Selection of Web Programming / Language/ Server / Database Management Software

257

7.38 Selection for Instant Messaging Software 258

7.39 Selection for Screen Casting Software 259

7.40 Selection of Online Survey 260

7.41 Selection for Portable Apps 261

7.42 Selection of Social Networking Software 262

7.43 Selection of Project Management 263

7.44 Selection of Library Apps Software 264

7.45 Selection of Virtual Machine Software 265

7.46 Selection of Animation and Computer Graphics Software 266

7.47 Selection of e-mail Server 267

7.48 Selection of Search Engine Software 268

7.49 Selection of Workflow, Forms and Case Management Software

269

7.50 Selection of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Software 270

XX


7.51 Adoption of other and Known Open Source Software (OSS) 271

7.52 Satisfaction with the Selection 277


XXI

Images

Image No. Title of the Image Page No.

1.1. Ten Decrees of Open Source Software 4

Chapter-wise theme images at beginning of every chapter

Chapter 1 : Introduction

Chapter 2 : Review of Literature

Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic and Research Libraries

Chapter 4: Open Source Software : Genesis, Technology and Library Information Science Perspective

Chapter 5: Functional OSS for Libraries : An Overview

Chapter 6: National and International Organizational Initiatives and Government Strategies for Open Source Software

Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Interpretation

Chapter 8 : Findings, Suggestions and Conclusion

XXII

Abbreviations

ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency

AGPL Affero General Public License

ARPANET Advanced Research Projects Agency Network

ACP Airline Control Program

AGPL Affero General Public License

API Application Program Interface

AEI American Enterprise Institute

ABCD Automatisación de Bibliotécas y Centros de Documentación

AU KBC Anna University K. B. Chandrashekhar

AIIMS All India Institute of Medical Sciences

AGIMO Australian Government Information Government Management Office

AD After Death

AICTE All India Institute of Technical Education

ARPANet Advanced Research Projects Agency Network

AGRIS International Information System for the Agricultural Sciences and Technology

ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy

AMD64 Advanced Micro Device

APCICT Asia Pacific Centre for ICT

APDIP Asia Pacific Development Information Program

AVG Anti-Virus Guard

AMC Annual Maintenance Contract

ALViC Accessible Linux for Visually Challenged

BSD Berkeley Software Distribution

BIND Berkeley Internet Name Domain

BCE Before Christian Era/ Common Era

BC Before Christ

BOSS Bharat Operating System Solution

CALIBNET Calcutta Library Network

CeRa Consortium of e-resources in Agriculture

XXIII

CSIR Council of Scientific & Industrial Research Laboratories

CUSAT Cochin University of Science and Technology

CENATIC Centro Nacional de Referencia de Aplicación de las Tecnologías de Información y la Comunicación basadas en Fuentes Abiertas

C-DAC Centre for Development of Advanced Computing

CDTC Technology and Knowledge Dissemination Centre

COPU China Open Source Promotion Union

CJK China Japan Korea (Open Source Alliance)

CSIA Chinese Software Industry Association

CeRA Consortium for e-Resources in Agriculture

CAS Current Awareness Service

CD ROM Compact Disk Read only Memory

CCTV Closed-circuit Television

CVS Concurrent Versions System

CUSAT Cochin University of Science and Technology

CSIR Council of Scientific & Industrial Research Laboratories

CALIBNET Calcutta Library Network

CSS Closed Source Software

CANMARK Canada Machine Readable Catalog

CYCLADES It’s a wireless network

CMS Content Management System

CBSE Central Board of Secondary Education

CSIA Chinese Software Industry Association

CLOCKSS Controlled Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe

CMYK Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Key (Black) colors

CSIS Center for Strategic and International Studies

CENATIC Centro Nacional de Referencia de Aplicación de las Tecnologías de Información y la Comunicación basadas en Fuentes Abiertas

CSIS Center for Strategic and International Studies

DeitY Department of Electronics & Information Technology

DFSG Debian Free Software Guidelines

DOAB Directory of Open Access Books

XXIV

DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals

DELNET Developing Library Network

DeitY Department of Electronics and Information Technology

DAE Department of Atomic Energy

DOE Department of Energy

DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journal

DMS Document Management System

DOAB Directory of Open Access Books

DNS Domain Name System

DVDs Digital Versatile Disks

DoCoMo Trademark of NTT DoCoMo Corporation Japan

DELNET Developing Library Network

DRDO Defence Research & Development Organization

DLL Dynamic Link Library

ERNET Education and Research Network

EBSCO Elton Bryson Stephens Company

ETDs Electronic Theses and Dissertations

E-mail Electronic Mail

EPL Eclipse Public License

EHR Electronic Health Record

EIFL-Net Electronic Information for Libraries

ERP Enterprise Resource Planning

FORSA Forum for Resource Sharing in Astronomy and Astrophysics

FOSS Free Open Source Software

FLOSS Free / Libre Open Source Software

FDL Federated Digital Library

FSF Free Software Foundation

FTP File Transfer Protocol

FS Free Software

FORSA Forum for Resource Sharing in Astronomy and Astrophysics

GPL General Public License

XXV

GNU Gnu not Unix

GFDL GNU Free Documentation License

GSDL Green Stone Digital Library

GIF Graphics Interchange Format

GIMP GNU Image Manipulation Program

GEM GEstures with Mouse

GITOC Government Information Technology Officer’s Council

HELINET Health Sciences and Library and Information Newtork

HDL Harvested Digital Library

HTML HyperText Markup Language

HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol

HP Hewlett-Packard

HDD Hard Disk

HTL Horowhenua Library Trust

ICSSR Indian Council of Social Science Research

ICMR Indian council of Medical Research

ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research

IIT Indian Institute of Technology

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IIM Indian Institute of Management

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

IIS Indian Institute of Science

IP Internet Protocol

INDEST Indian National Digital Library in Engineering Science and Technology

ICICI Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India

ISRO Indian Space Research Organization

ILMS Integrated Library Management Systems

IBM International Business Machines

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

INDEST Indian National Digital Libraries in Engineering Science & Technology

XXVI

IaaS Infrastructure as a service

IOSN International Open Source Network

IFLA International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions

INFLIBNET Information Library Network

IRC Internet Relay Chat

IT Information Technology

INFONET Information Network

ILIAS Integriertes Lern-, Informations- und Arbeitskooperations System (German open source learning management system)

ICC International Color Consortium

ILMS Integrated Library Management Systems

ICFOSS International Centre for Free and Open Source Software, Kerala

IPv4 Internet Protocol Version 4

IPv6 Internet Protocol Version 6

ISO International Organization for Standardization

JMS Java Message Service

JIS Japanese Industrial Standards

JISA Japanese IT Services Industry

KFII Federation of Korean Information Industries

KVM Keyboard, Video and Mouse

KIIKM Kesavan Institute of Information and Knowledge Management

LISA Library & Information Science Abstract

LAN Local Area Network

LGPL Lesser General Public License

LOCKSS Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Save

LAMP Linux, Apache, MySQL, Perl and PHP

LISTA Library Information Science Technology Abstracts

LINUX Linus Torvald's UNIX

LIBSYS Library Management System

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Multics Multiplexed Information and Computer Services

MAN Metropolitan Area Network

XXVII

MARC Machine Readable Catalog

MPL 2.0 Mozilla Public License 2.0

MDGs Millennium Development Goals (MDGs

MII Ministry of Information Industry

MPL Mozilla Public License

NROER National Repository of Open Educational Resources

NSCA National Center for Supercomputing Applications

NICNET National Informatics Centers Network

NSDL National Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Digital Library

NPL Network Protocol Library

NGL New Generation Library

NKC National Knowledge Commission

NRCFOSS National Resource Center for Free & Open Source Software

NIIT National Institute of Information Technology

NBS National Bureau of Statistics

NEC Nippon Electric Company

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration)

NAP National Action Plan

NACI National Advisory Council on Innovation (South Africa)

NKC National Knowledge Commission

NIT National Institute of Technology

NAP National Action Plan

NISSAT National Information System for Science and Technology (India)

OSCAR Open Source Courseware Animations Repository

OSes Operating System

OS Open Source

OSI Open Source Initiative

OSS Open Source Software

OSCD Open Source Community Developers

OPAC Online Public Access Catalogue

OA Open Access

XXVIII

ONSFA National Open Source Competency Centre. National Open Source Software Observatory

OSD Open Source Definition

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSSRC Open Source Software Resource Center

OAI-PMH Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting

OAI-ORE Open Archives Initiative Object Reuse and Exchange

OATD Open Access Theses and Dissertations

OJS Open Journal System

OCLC Online Computer Library Center

OAJSE Open Access Journals Search Engine

OCR Optical Character Recognition

RSS Really Simple Syndication, Rich Site Summary

PDAS Personal Digital Assistance

PITAC President’s information technology advisory committee

PaaS Platform as a service

RUSA Reference and Users Services Association

RFID Radio Frequency Identification Device

RePEc Research Papers in Economics

RDBMS Relational Database Management System

RTC Real-time Communication

RHEL Red Hat Enterprise Linux

RTF Rich Text Format

SDL stand-alone digital library

SOUL Software for University Library

SDI Selective Dissemination of Information

SMEs Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise

SaaS Software as a service

SFA Software for all

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

SRI Stanford Research Institute

TCP Transmission Control Protocol

XXIX

TCO Total Cost of Ownership

TOC Table of Content

UGC- DAE Consortium

University Grant Commission’s Department of Atomic Energy

UCLA University of California, Los Angeles

UNICS Uniplexed Information and Computing System

URI Uniform Resource Identifier

UGC-INFONET University Grants Commission Information Network

UGC University Grants Commission

UNESCO United Nation’s Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNIMARC Universal Machine Readable Catalog

USMARC United States Machine Readable Catalog

UNIX Pun on Munics earlier operating system

URL Universal Resource Locator

UNDP United Nation’s Development Program

UMASS University of Massachusetts

UNDP United Nations Development Plans

VRD Virtual Reference Desk

VSATs visual small Aperture Terminal

VoIP voice over Internet protocol

VLC VideoLAN Client

VCDs Versatile Compact Disk/Discs

WLANs Wireless Local Area Network

WAN Wide Area Network

WWW World Wide Web

XML Extensible Markup Language

XXX

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Sr. No. Title Page No.

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Background of the Study 2

1.3 Ten Decrees of OSS 3

1.4 Open Source Software : An Introduction 5

1.4.1 What is FS / OSS / FOSS / FLOSS 6

1.5 Role of OSS in Libraries 6

1.6 Need of the Study 7

1.7 Aim and Purpose of the Study 8

1.8 Objectives of the Study 9

1.9 Hypotheses of the Study 9

1.10 Research Methodology 10

1.10.1 Universe of Population 10

1.10.2 Sampling 11

1.10.3 Data Collection Technique 14

1.10.4 Data Analysis Technique 15

1.11 Scope and Limitations of the study 15

1.12 Conspectus 16

References 17

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The advent of Information Communication Technology enhanced the role of libraries and

librarians in academic and research institutions. Libraries have come a long way from

handling traditional formats like books, manuscripts, journals, maps, charts, atlases,

microfilms, and sound recordings to digital formats such as e-books, e-Journals,

multimedia, hypertext, dynamic pages, interactive audio and video. This has added new

opportunities as well as challenges too, for its organization, dissemination, indexing,

preservation, and redistribution over the web is a concern. With its new re-oriented form

libraries are serving a larger community via telecommunication technologies that include

fiber optics, wireless applications, and cloud computing. Also, networking, digital and

audiovisual technologies open a new avenue and have a greater impact on storage and

retrieval capabilities of libraries. The entire process of technical and scientific knowledge

transformed from textual to online learning. Apart from the above technological

developments, libraries are unable to encompass modern tools. Further, shrinking

budgets, automation of libraries and the increasing cost of journals forced institutions to

search for new alternatives. All this and more provided by Open Source (OS) and Open

Access (OA). As far as the implementation of OSS is concern, it has given some (not

full) respite to budget constrained libraries a better alternative, cheaper solution to come

out of vendor yoke!

Library automation is the basis of developing advanced libraries in respect of collection

development and service provided. It is observed that the commercial library

management software available in the market which is fulfilling all the needs of libraries

is very costly and beyond the reach of small and medium scale libraries. Research and

development librarians are now searching for alternatives for automation software which

could be cost effective and run parallel to commercial software. Now Open Source

Software is available for automating libraries more effectively in which Koha is the best

software as well as e-Granthalaya, and NewGenLib, but many professionals are not

1

Use and Impact of OSSs Among Selected Academic and Research Institute Libraries: A Critical Study of Indian Perspective

Chapter 1: Introduction

aware of these free of cost library management software packages for easy

computerization.

1.2. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

In today’s age of information technology, it is fundamental to use a computer for daily

activities. Information on the Internet is increasing at such a pace that libraries need to be

equipped to handle the information with great efficiency and software are playing a

crucial role in handling and giving timely access to the information. This transformation

from traditional to automated services burdened the libraries to acquire certain Digital

Library, Library Automation, Course Management, Content/Knowledge Management,

Journal Management, e-Journal Archiving, and e-Learning software. This is not the end

of it as there are many other software needed, to satisfy and serve the users such as OCR,

Plagiarism, Document Management System, PDF document editing, Drawing, Image

editing and Graphics Designing, Audio/Video recording of talks and editing, web

downloading, instant messaging, screen casting, online surveys, portable apps, library

apps, virtual machines, animation and computer graphics, workflow, forms and case

management, Enterprise resource planning and etc. It is almost impossible for institutions

to acquire such software. Open Source Software (OSS) has varied the range of software

not only exclusively developed for libraries but almost for all fields or endeavors. Source

Forge (www.sourceforge.net) is an Open Source Community dedicated to helping open

source projects. Developers on Source Forge create powerful software in over 430,000

projects.

Proprietary software (commercial software) are very expensive and annual maintenance

contract has to be paid every year and no modification and alteration is possible until next

version is released. It gives the user the right to use the software under certain licensing

terms. Users are not aware of the working conditions and designed the software and do

not have access to the source code. Whereas Open Source Software are free to download

and no license fee has to be paid since the source code is open. It means modification and

alteration are also possible in software according to the requirement. Open Source

Community Developers (OSCD) and forums are available to resolve the problems. Apart

2



from documentation, manuals, video tutorials, blogs, workshops, training, hands-on-

practice in collaboration with certain institutes and centers’ help to gain knowledge about

the handling of Open Source Software (OSS). Moreover, the Government of India has

taken an initiative establishing a national policy for the adoption of Open Source

Software (OSS).

Another important issue in purchase or development of software and testing on the

network-based server and fixing bugs and error is very time and money consuming. After

all efforts a stable version of software is release. Whereas, Open Source Software (OSS)

is already tested, bugs free, releases updated stable versions and world-renowned experts

develop it! Moreover, libraries need not pay any development charges or licensing fees

for the software. In spite of all these features and qualities Open Source Software (OSS)

is in primitive age as far as India is a concern. Therefore, this study will reveal up to what

extent Open Source Software (OSS) replaces the commercial software and what are the

reasons that Open Source Software (OSS) is gaining momentum or vice versa.

The use of Open Source Software is increasing in academic and research libraries

because of its useful features for any type of library. Librarians are not yet aware and

using these software effectively for library usage. It is necessary to understand the

importance of Open Source Software and its usability in libraries. Therefore detailed

study about Open Source Software is a necessity and this need is felt by the present

researcher and has made an effort to describe the all about Open Source Software system,

its usability and special features so that its use can be enhanced. The study of Open

Source Software definitely helps in evaluating the best Open Source Software available

for libraries and information centers right from small to large.

1.3. TEN DECREES OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) defined the Open Source (Open Source Initiative, No

date)

The following ten points suggest the same:

3



Image: 1.1 Ten Decrees of OSS

1. “Free Redistribution: The license shall not restrict any party from selling or

giving away the software. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for

such sale.

2. Source Code: The program must include source code, and must allow

distribution. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code.

3. Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and

must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the

original software.

4. Integrity of the Author's Source Code: The license may restrict source code

that modifications are distributed as ‘patch files’. In addition, the license should

contain that derived works and hold a different name or version number from the

original software.

5. No Discrimination against Persons or Groups: The license must not

discriminate against any person or group of persons.

6. No Discrimination against Fields of Endeavor: The license must not restrict

anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor.

7. Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to

whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional

license by those parties.

4



8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: The license must not be specific to

a particular product or distribution.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: The license must not place

restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software.

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: No provision of the license may be

predicated on any individual technology or style of interface”.

The above ten points narrate the features of open source software. The rationale behind

theses is explained in detailed in chapter four of the study.

1.4. OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE : AN INTRODUCTION

The Open Source Software (OSS) gained attention due to growing popularity of several

successful Open Source Software (OSS) projects and increasing use of Internet. The

Open Source Software (OSS) rotates around the concept of making software ‘open

source’ or, in other words, making the source code freely available to anybody. The word

‘Open’ denotes to making the source code freely available so that anybody can improve,

modify, and resolve bugs and errors. The word ‘Source’ denotes to the source code. It

comprises of programme details written by a programmer in a particular programming

language such as Java, C, C++ and etc. These programmings instruct the computer to run

the software. Humans just cannot read and alter the code since it is secure in which ever

programming language it is written. The commercial software vendor treats their source

code as intellectual property, trade secret and because of that it is hardly publicized to the

third party or if at all wanted to publicize then under strict licensing terms and conditions.

Open Source Software (OSS) stand tough against this dogma and proprietary way of

thinking. Rightly so given by (Breeding, 2002) “OSS can be used freely without having

to pay license fees to its developers. It is release under the standard license called General

Public License (GPL), which specifies that the software can be used, modified, and

distributed for free. Under a GPL, the software can be changed and enhanced, but the

new version must also be released under the same terms. With OSS, the underlying

source code must be made available along with the binary version that actually runs on a

computer. Releasing source code reveals all the details of an application's inner working.

5



In the open source arena, this facilitates collaborative development. In the commercial

arena, releasing source code can be a fundamental contradiction to basic business

principles.”

1.4.1. What is FS / OSS / FOSS / FLOSS Free Software is also known as Open Source Software (OSS) or Free Open Source

Software (FOSS) or Free / Liber Open Source Software (FLOSS). Developers have used

these alternative terms, consequently to describe Open Source Software (OSS). “Free

Software Foundation” (www.fsf.org) defines the distribution terms and says “Free

Software” means software which respects users’ freedom and community. “Roughly, it

means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve

the software. Thus, “Free Software” is a matter of liberty, not price”. The Open Source

Initiative (www.opensource.org) has given the distribution terms of Open Source

Software (OSS) must comply that it should allow “modification, redistribution, open

source code, no discrimination against any person or group or fields or endeavor,

distribution of license who receives the program, license must not be product specific,

restrict other software and must be technological neutral”. Both the Free Software

Movement and the Open Source Movement share this view of free exchange of

programming code and this is often why both the movements are sometimes referred as

part of the FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) or FLOSS (Free/Liber Open Source

Software) or Open Source Software (OSS) and that is the reason the researcher has prefer

to use the term “Open Source Software (OSS)” in his study. The formations of these two

foundations are explained in detail in later chapters. Thus, Open Source Software is now

used prominently but it is popular with various name having maximum common

similarities.

1.5. ROLE OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE IN LIBRARIES

The key issue in library and information science is mainly focused on library co-

operations, resource sharing, consortia, open access, archive initiatives and so on and so

forth. It is this very nature of the library that advocates the openness of library. Open

6



Source Software also works on the sharing of source code for development of libraries in

providing services to the users without boundaries. Starting from library automation,

digital library, content management, web publishing, OPAC, and many other software,

OSS has become viable option to commercial software. Software packages are the major

requirement of libraries but at the same time their management and maintenance is the

big issue. Moreover after spending much on library fund libraries are not getting enough

solution to the problems related with information technology. With little efforts and

training librarians can develop a skill that they can install, maintain and run Open Source

Software virtually at no cost! It places fewer restrictions on the user and provides the user

an opportunity to take direct control of the software. It allows to view the source code

and modify it according to the needs. New versions released enables libraries to improve

features and it increases the interoperability. All these features are very significant to

libraries to adopt OSS without much delay.

1.6. NEED OF THE STUDY

Many researchers, scholars, and librarians have tried to identify applicability of Open

Source Software in various areas of libraries. The following few studies reflected in

literature review indicate that there is a need to develop a comprehensive study on all the

Open Source Software useful for different function carried out in library. The researcher

has identified more than forty- three that consist of one hundred and ninety-five software

packages that can be used in libraries selected for study. Consciously or unconsciously

libraries use different kind of trailware, freeware and shareware software to help their

users to tackle challenges arises out of online learning. But there are limitations to use

this software, in this circumstances OSS is the best alternative as compared to the above

mentioned software including commercial software. It is fully loaded with features and is

international standard compliant! It is highly recommended that libraries utilize this

software.

1. Barve Sunita (2008) An Evaluation of Open Source Software for building

Digital Libraries, thesis submitted to University of Pune - Department of

Library and Information Science for PhD.

7



2. Sawant Sarika (2009) Institutional Repository Initiatives in India: A status

report, thesis submitted to SNDT Women’s University Department of


3. Chouhan Lal Bahadur (2010) Open Source Software for Library

Management: A study, thesis submitted to National Institute of Science

Communication and Information Resources (NISCAIR) for Associate ship

in Information Science.

4. Sunil M. V. (2011) An analytical study of Open Source Software for

College Libraries, thesis submitted to University of Mysore, Department

of Library and Information Science for PhD.

5. Atri Yoigesh Kumar (2012) Free / Open versus Commercial software: A

study of some selected Library Management Software, thesis submitted to

Shri Jagdish Prasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala University, Department of


6. Bhavsar Sandeep Ashok (2013) Use and Applications of Open Source

Software in Libraries, thesis submitted to North Maharashtra University,

Department of Library and Information Science for PhD.

7. Cherukodan, S (2015) Measuring maturity of Open Source Software for

Digital Libraries. : A case Study of DSpace, thesis submitted to Cochin

University of Science and Technology, Department of Computer

Applications for PhD.

The review of the above mention studies reflect that the present study undertaken by

researcher is different than the above studies and there is a need to conduct detailed study

on Open Source Software (OSS) and its maximum practical utility in academic and

research institutions which is the torch bearer for other libraries. None of the above

studies covers the variety of OSS that has been covered by the present researcher.

1.7. AIM AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The main aim of this research work is to understand the concept behind Open Source

Software and study different OSS available for improving library functions using the

same. It is to undertake some reality check about the use and impact of OSS. The purpose

8



is to find out alternative to commercial software and develop awareness among the

library professionals. It is observed that library professionals are not fully aware of OSS

and hence very less usage is reflected only in large libraries. For modernization of

libraries OSS packages are very good solutions especially for small and medium libraries.

This study helps library professionals in selecting proper software for library in place of

commercial software. The purpose of the researcher is also to find out which academic

and research library have used OSS and their opinion about the application of OSS in

libraries.

1.8. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To study in detail the Open Source Software (OSS) genesis, technology and

library information science perspectives.

2. To study the applicability of Open Source Software (OSS) in libraries.

3. To examine national and international initiatives and government strategies for

the promotion of Open Source Software (OSS).

4. To study awareness and use of Open Source Software (OSS) in libraries.

5. To suggest some suitable Open Source Software (OSS) useful in libraries for

carrying out library functions.

1.9. HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

1. Not many libraries (less than 50%) use Open Source Software (OSS).

2. Only those librarians adopt Open Source Software who are more tech savvy and

aware of Open Source Software (OSS) benefits.

There are many hypotheses tested on the bases of questionnaire, although they have not

been discussed here due to repetition and deviation from the main theme. However, they

have been tested duly to throw more lights on the study.

9



1.10. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research methodology consists of various procedural steps such as identification of

research method, tools for data collection and selecting techniques for processing and

analyzing the data collected. The present study is a ‘Descriptive Research’ in type since it

aims to gather descriptive information and also describes characteristics of the

population. There are three types of descriptive research methods i.e. Observational

Methods, Case Study Method and Survey Method. For this study ‘Survey Method’ is

applied. The nature of the study is quantitative. Textual information collected through

questionnaire is quantified for data analysis and finding is supported by numerical facts.

Respondents will be contacted only once and the relevant data will be gathered, hence,

the time dimension is cross-sectional. The secondary method applied for this study is

‘Documentary Research’. A review of the literature reveals the existence of a gap with

respect to uses and impact of OSS among academic and research institutions in the Indian

scenario. A thorough review of previous studies on the topic will be critically examined

and result oriented conclusions will be drawn.

1.10.1. Universe of Population

A structured questionnaire was distributed online using Google forms/ e-mail. The

respondents were librarians of academic and research libraries of India. Since the

objective of the study is to find out the use and impact of OSS among academic and

research libraries, therefore; libraries of higher eminence in academic and research across

India are selected as a sample unit. The reason is, they are representing the true face of

Indian Education and gained the status of National Importance. The academic and

research institutes excluded from the study is mentioned in scope and limitations of the

study.

The list of libraries of academic institutions is taken from the following web source.

Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development

(www.mhrd.gov.in)

University Grants Commission (www.ugc.ac.in)

10



The list of research institutions in India is taken from the following web source.

Council of Scientific & Industrial Research Laboratories (CSIR)

(www.csir.res.in)

Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) (www.icmr.nic.in)

Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) (www.icar.org.in)

Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR) (www.icssr.org)

Table 1.1: Academic and Research Institutions in India

Sr. No.

Type of Institute

Institutes in India

1 Central Universities 45 2 State Universities 321 3 Deemed to be Universities 134 4 Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) 16 5 Indian Institute of Management (IIM) 13 6 Indian Institute of Sciences (IISc) 1 7 Council for Scientific & Industrial Research Laboratories (CSIR) 39 8 Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) 32

9 Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) National Research Centers (16) Deemed Universities (4) 16

10 Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR) 27 Total 644

1.10.2. Sampling

The sampling method for the above study applied is ‘Judgmental Sampling’. It also

called ‘Purposive Sampling’. “Judgmental or purposive sampling fall under the category

of non-probability technique where the researcher uses his judgment to select the sample

element (participating libraries) which he feels will give him the anticipated facts and

figures.” (Lavraskas , 2008) Judgmental or purposive sampling gives the researcher the

authority of selection of such respondents who are more focused and equipped with

information that is relevant to the researcher’s interest. This technique is applied when

the desired population for the study is very challenging to employ. The researcher aims at

a specific group of people who have achieved capability and related with the objective of

the study.

11

http://www.icar.org.in/



Table 1.2: Academic and Research Libraries in India

Sr. No.

Type of Institute

Institutes in India

1 Central Universities 45 2 State Universities 321

3 Deemed to be Universities and Deemed Agricultural Universities 134

4 Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) 16 5 Indian Institute of Management (IIM) 13 6 Indian Institute of Science (IISc) 1

7 Council for Scientific & Industrial Research Laboratories (CSIR) 39

8 Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) 32

9 NRC’s Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) 16

10 Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR) 27

Total 644

The sample size was determined using proportion method:

Formula; N= z2 * (p*q) e2

Where ‘z’ is the standard score associated with a confidence level (90%) in the current

case). Hence, standard scores equal to 1.645 (borrowed from the normal table).

‘p*q’ is the variability in the data set, computed using the worst case scenario (0.5*0.5).

P= proportion of libraries using Open Source Software (OSS) and q= proportion of

libraries not using Open Source Software (OSS).

‘E’ is the tolerable error = 10% (in the current study).

Sample size n = 1.6452*(0.5*0.5) = 64

0.12

Population was divided into ten groups:

1. Central Universities

2. State Universities

3. Deemed to be Universities and Deemed Agricultural Universities

12



4. Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)

5. Indian Institute of Management (IIM)

6. Indian Institute of Science (IISc)

7. Council for Scientific & Industrial Research Laboratories (CSIR)

8. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)

9. NRC’s Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)

10. Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR)

The size of sample computed 64 by using sample size ‘Proportion Method’. This amounts

to 10% of the population. Therefore, the size of the strata for selecting samples was also

kept 10%. Hence, a questionnaire was distributed to 64 libraries of repute in India,

however the valid questionnaire received was 52, and therefore, sample size was freezed

at 52.

Table 1.3: Academic and Research Libraries selected for study

Sr. No.

Type of Institute Institutes

in India

Proportion Sample Size

10%

Response Received

1 Central Universities 45 5 5 2 State Universities 321 32 20

3 Deemed to be Universities and Deemed Agricultural Universities 134 13 14

4 Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) 16 2 2 5 Indian Institute of Management (IIM) 13 1 1 6 Indian Institute of Science (IISc) 1 0 0

7 Council for Scientific & Industrial Research Laboratories (CSIR) 39 3 2

8 Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) 32 3 3

9 NRC’s Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) 16 2 2

10 Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR) 27 3 3

Total 644 64 52

13



1.10.3. Data Collection Technique

Data was collected from two sources, namely primary sources, and secondary sources.

The primary data collected using survey technique. The contact method for collection of

data is through the web-based survey, telephone, e-mail, and personal interview. As a

research instrument, a close ended structured questionnaire is prepared and limited

probing questions asked. The types of questions are nominal, categorical, multiple choice

and also based on Interval Scale. The scale used to measure subjective properties

mentioned in the study is five point Likert Scale. The questionnaire is divided into five

parts. Part one consist of common questions mandatory for all libraries to know the name

of a respondent, age, sex, work experience, mailing address, work hour, name of

university / library, year of establishment, type of library, whether academic or research,

details about the registered users, library staff, and collection size. Part two questions are

related to Library Automation and Selection of Software. Questions such as

telecommunication systems, ICT infrastructure, automation status, type of software used,

operating system, presently installed software along with cost, web hosting, support

system and maintenance charges. Part three questions are asked to those libraries that are

using only Proprietary/Commercial, In-house Developed and Customized Software. They

have been asked to respond questions such as, criteria for selecting a software; whether

they are satisfied with the selection; if yes then why or if no then what are the reasons;

facts about OSS; their awareness apart from library automation and digitalization of other

OSS useful in library; are they interested in OSS if no or yes then the reasons; their

preference if they want to use OSS; their opinion about statements on OSS in comparison

with other than OSS. Part four questions are asked to those libraries that are using only

OSS. Questions such as the software they were using before selecting OSS; reasons for

selecting/migrating to OSS; reasons why OSS is not widely accepted in Indian scenario;

their knowledge of OSS operating system; level of satisfaction using OSS’s functionality;

any modifications required; their mode of acquiring knowledge on OSS; their

personal/institution’s contribution spreading awareness about OSS; role of librarian/

institution for promoting OSS; how they manage to fix bugs and errors; observations on

OSS; before and after the impact adopting OSS; and finally their comments about

positive and negative on selecting OSS. Part five questions are asked to those libraries

14



that are using both OSS and commercial software. They are asked to respond criteria for

selection of software; satisfaction with the selection; if yes/no then the reasons;

workshop/ conference/ seminar attended; Impact before and after attending workshops;

reasons for migrating/ selecting to OSS; problems facing while using OSS; observations

on OSS; reasons for continuing both OSS and commercial software and opinion about

OSS. The secondary data is collected through published sources such as national and

international journals, articles, theses, online databases like Elsevier, Science Direct,

Springer, EBSCO, IEEE, LISTA, DOAJ, DOAB, OATD, IFLA, Emerald, ETDs, Google

Books and Scholar, N-List, Shodhganga, Shodgangotri, publications of various

universities, bodies, associations and research institutes; encyclopedias, reports,

newsletters and bulletins; studies done by various associations and scholars; books and

magazines; national and international libraries and information science networks and

lastly information downloaded from related websites.

1.10.4. Data Analysis Technique

Data collected from the respondents through structured questionnaires, Personal Contact,

Telephone contact, and e-mail contact, will be evaluated and analyzed to find results. The

data will be processed using Microsoft Excel and IBMSPSS. Details of the study will be

analyzed using graphs, charts, frequency distribution and numerous statistical techniques

such as Sign Bi-nomial test, frequency distribution, and Friedman Chi-square Test.

1.11. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This study has not done the comparison of OSS with proprietary software and will not fix

any evaluation criteria for OSS. The study will only consider the use and impact of OSS

among selected academic and research institutes of India. The objective of the research is

not to compare and declare which academic or research libraries are more active in using

OSS in their libraries. Even the analysis is not done segregating academic and research

libraries but considered as one unit. Hence, the analysis of the data is done on

consolidated and not isolated basis. The analysis of the data is done on the basis of types

of libraries - Type One: Commercial; Type Two: OSS; Type Three: Both OSS and

Commercial. Both academic and research libraries are counted under the above

15



mentioned types of libraries. There are innumerable academic and research institutes of

higher eminence in India where all the facilities are being covered. The researcher has

focused only a few selected ones and after selecting the institutes they have been further

narrowed down by applying the proper sample size formula. As far as selecting academic

Institutions is concerned Central Universities, State Universities, Deemed Universities,

Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Indian Institute of Management (IIM), and Indian

Institute of Science (IISc) were selected. The academic institutions excluded from the

study were educational institutes up to undergraduate level, college affiliated to

universities, private and autonomous universities, engineering, architecture, law and

institutions of other medical branches except medical science. The research institutes

selected are Council for Scientific & Industrial Research Laboratories (CSIR), Indian

Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR),

and Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR). The research institutes falling

under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Department of Energy

(DOE), Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Nuclear Sciences, and Earth Sciences are

excluded from the study since these institutes are not classical institutes and have

classified data. The data is highly confidential and not shared with everyone.

1.12. CONSPECTUS

The entire study is categorized under following chapters:


The chapter first gives introduction regarding how libraries have developed from

traditional to digital and entire face of libraries have been transformed in ICT era. It also

justifies why software is crucial and OSS is an alternative to expensive commercial

software. The definition of OSI about OSS emphasizes the nature of OSS and their

characteristics. Different OSS terms, meaning and importance is also explained. The

chapter also covers aim, purpose, objectives, scope, limitations and the need of study.

Like any other study this study also gives an account of research methodology applied for

the study, hypotheses, data collection technique, data analysis technique, sampling, and

the universe of population.

16



Chapter 2: Review of Literature

Review of related literature is conducted to enable the researcher to get a clear

understanding of the specific field of study. It enables to avoid the duplication of research

work and broadens the understanding of research problem. An attempt is made here to

present the review of literature of research papers published in Library Science Journals,

Institutional Repositories, Conferences, Seminars, Workshops, Bibliographies, Online

Information Resources, Online Databases, and LISA (Library & Information Science

Abstract). The study is grouped under particular headings.

Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic and Research Libraries

This chapter gives the overview of transformation of libraries from ancient, traditional to

automation, electronic, hybrid, digital, virtual and presently to cloud based. Every day,

millions of electronic pages are being added as compared to text publications. Libraries

supposed to serve the electronic users for this purpose, should be equipped with the latest

technology and at the same time should render various web based services. Various

emerging technologies along with application of ICT in libraries and application of the

Internet in libraries are explained in detail in this chapter.

Chapter 4: Open Source Software: Genesis, Technology and Library Information

Science Perspective

Open source has progressed to its present state as a result of many technological

breakthroughs in the field of digital communication. After the advancement of the

Internet, open source grew exponentially that allow thousands of programmers around the

globe to collaborate collectively to design the finest software with freely available source

code. It has become a sustainable alternative to commercial software. Thus, this chapter

describes the genesis and development of source software technology, historical

background, intellectual property and licenses, software types and LIS perspectives.

Chapter 5: Functional Open Source Software for Libraries: An Overview

Open Source Software has developed thousands of software useful for a varied number of

fields and subjects. It has developed software for libraries also and each satisfies a

17



particular need. Knowingly or unknowingly libraries are using many freeware,

shareware, trialware and public domain software without realizing the limitations of the

same. OSS is more pragmatic and accomplished software that guarantees free as well as

upgraded features which other software packages fail to provide. This chapter highlights

the functional and practical OSS that can be used in libraries and gives their description,

special features and technical specification.

Chapter 6: National and International Organizational Initiatives and Government

Strategies for Open Source Software

Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) has grown incredibly in the past few years.

Considering the FOSS features national and international governments are picking the

best technology based on cost and performance to boost their economies and also many

national and international organizations in collaboration supporting OSS. The

governments of many countries are spending billions of dollars to purchase IT

infrastructure from other countries to save their foreign exchange. They are making

strategies and policies to groom OSS. This will not only cut their budget on IT but also

by adopting OSS; help give rise to their countries talent in IT sector. This chapter unveils

their efforts towards OSS.


The questionnaire was distributed to sixty-four academic and research institute libraries

and fifty-two libraries have responded. Their feedback was analyzed using proper

statistical technique and on its bases interpretation and observation was formed. This

reveals the position of OSS, awareness and usability.

Chapter 8: Findings, Suggestions, and Conclusion

This chapter is the heart of the entire study where the result of the data is judged on the

bases of input received from respondent libraries. Major findings are based on review of

literature, data analysis, librarians’ view, researcher’s view and objectives of the study.

The suggestions highlights that libraries must have ICT based approach and OSS is the

best medium to adopt and implement. Suggestions at national level, OSS community and

18



appeal to all librarians to participate in developing OSS are made. An area for further

research can be done is mentioned at the end.

****************************

19



REFERENCES

Breeding, M. (2002, October). An Update on Open Source ILS, Information Today. Retrieved June 13th, 2013, from Library Technologu Guides: http://librarytechnology.org/repository/item.pl?id=9975

Lavraskas , P. (2008). Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. California: Sage

Publications Inc. Randal, A. (No date). The Open Source Definition. Retrieved June 17th, 2013, from Open

Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/osd

20

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE


2.1 Introduction 21

2.2 Review of Literature 21

2.2.1 Use of ICT in Libraries 21

2.2.2 Role of Software in Automation and Functioning of Libraries 28

2.2.3 Open Source Software basics 34

2.2.4 Open Source Software used in Academic and Research Libraries 41

2.2.5 Published Theses and Special Issues on Open Source Software 45

Summary of the Chapter 48

References 50

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1. INTRODUCTION

Review of related literature is conducted to enable a researcher to get a clear

understanding of the specific field of study. It enables to avoid the duplication of research

work and broadens the understanding of problems. An attempt is made here to present

the review of literature of research papers published in Library Science Journals,

Institutional Repositories, Conferences, Seminars, Workshops, Bibliographies, Online

Information Resources, Online Databases, OSS websites and LISA (Library &

Information Science Abstract). The review of literature grouped under the following

headings.

2.2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature is categorized and explained under the following five headings:

Use of Information Communication Technology in Libraries.

The role of Software in Automation and Functioningof Libraries.

OSS basics.

OSS used in academic and research libraries.

Published theses and special issues on OSS

2.2.1. Use of Information and Communication Technology in Libraries

(Hussain, 2013) The traditional way of information management has proven futile in

providing the specific information. With the help of information technology and the

Internet disseminating the information become easier. It has cut the time barrier and

increased the efficiency of providing services to the users. The users information seeking

behavior also got affected due to easy access totheInternet, highbandwidth of networks,

search engines and increase in a number of electronic publications. Advanced

developments in ICT have made an enormous impact on information management and

information services. The application of ICT has changed the shape of library and the

role of librarian. The use of ICT in libraries permits incorporation of various activities,

21



increases efficiency of acquisition, quick access to library holdings and contents. This

book also contains a selection of library automation software, useful OSS fort hel ibrary,

management of e-resources, RFID systems, online library services, digital preservations

and development of social networking system.

(Cholin, Study of the application of information technology for effective access to

resources in Indian University Libraries, 2005) This study attempts to give an overall

impression of information technology implementation in different Indian university

libraries that delivers operational access to various e-resources available with them. It

focuses the role of University Grants Commission (UGC) and INFLIBNET. The

INFLIBNET is a national network and an inter-university center of University Grants

Commission which is providing access to huge quantity of e-books and e-journals

through itsprogram N-List and UGC-INFONET. The study also containsanumber of

employees, the number of users study, utilization of budget, set up of information

technology infrastructure, the number of computers and hardware and software

utilization. It also discloses the stages of various universities as far as the application of

information technology is concerned.

(Raza, 2007) A comparative study conducted in four university libraries i.e. is Punjab

University Library-Chandigarh; Himachal Pradesh University-Shimla; Punjabi University

Library-Patiala; and Guru Nanak Dev University Library - Amritsar. The study was

designed to ascertain the use of information technology in above referred universities.

ICT has become one of the major factors causing changes in the way people

communicate, locate, retrieve and use information. The ICT functions and activities

include organization, management and dissemination of information, library networks,

digital access, abstracting and indexing, database creation, online subject portals, CAS

and SDI service sand online publications. Its telecommunication facilities include

electronic mail, electronic bulletin, electronic conferencing and telefacsimile. A survey

was conducted and it is found that only two universities proving online databases and

physical material is widely usedcompared with electronic resources.

22



(Mehta & Kalra, 2006) ICT has become a part of our lives. Its rapid expansion in every

sector compels people to join and progress alongwith. It provides an option to those who

want to acquire education. Those who are from marginalized strata of society do not have

this opportunity. This increases social divide, widens the gap between rich and poor

countries. The countries who are utilizing ICT for information development are called

informational rich societies and those countries who are not utilizing ICT are called

informational poor societies. Knowledge and techniques based on the availability of

access to quick and relevant information developed the socio-economic stature of a

county. Hence, we can say that the development of a country’s economy is based on

information development. By giving access to ICT will improve the rural life, the

conditions of education, health and will reduce the gap between farmers and the markets.

The study identifies technological solutions of various problems and gives a solution that

helps to achieve the social objectives.

(Saleem A, 2013) This study examines the use of application of ICT in academic libraries

and that includes Engineering, Arts, Science and Commerce Colleges. According to the

author, information technology is the fifth need of humans after water, air, foodand

shelter. Information processing, storage, communication, dissemination of information,

automation further origin of the Internet and development of World Wide Web have

revolutionized the information communication technology. Based on this, the application

of ICT in libraries became essential to provide the facilities of the user community”. The

study concludes that the first choice in the application of ICT is a mobile phone. Most of

the academic libraries do not have LAN facility and that hampers the use of the Internet.

(Singh D K, 2008) ICT is the source to transform the world into one hub where

information is shared. The paper discusses the role of ICT in transforming libraries into a

knowledgeable society. With the help of technology the entire housekeeping operations

and dissemination of information hasbecome easy. Several initiatives have been taken

from Government of India and National Task Force was constituted on the progress of

information technology and software development. Even though the library and

information centers failed to implement and there is certain lack as far as union

23



catalogatnational level is concerned. There is a poor bibliographic control at national

level and that causes alot of duplication in research work. The study also highlights the

problems encountered by the libraries and information centers and the initiatives taken by

the Government of India over the years.

(Islam & Islam, 2006) This study attempts to explore the gradual advancement of modern

technologies. Earlier libraries were treated as ‘storehouse of books’ but due to

advancement in technology they areconsidered as dynamite of information. With this new

dimension, libraries have become a global village where access to information crossed

all boundaries and barriers. Global information becomes easy with the advancement of

ICT. The component of ICT includes computer technology and communication

technology. Computer technology is consisting of workstations, mainframe computers,

supercomputers, minicomputers, personal computers, microchiptechnology and software

technology. The communication technology includes audio and video technology, motion

pictures, videotext, teletext, telephone, fax, mobile phones, e-mail, voice mail,

teleconferencing, satellite technology, the Internet, network technology and LAN/ MAN/

WAN. Both the above technologies have brought revolutionary changes in library and

with the help of ICT the world is becoming from technologically illiterate to

technologically literate. Any library equipped with the above facilities could satisfy the

demand of the present techsavvy users.

(Antherjanam & Sheeja, 2008) The aim of the study is to find out the impact of ICT on

LIS and its major shifts and practices in University library of CUSAT (Cochin University

of Science and Technology). Information technology is an unending resource and

affected all fields and walks of life. It has also affected deeply libraries and information

centers. Due to the emergence of ICT information handling depends on just a click of a

mouse. The application of ICT brought a significant change in library operations. The

tasks such as acquisition, circulation, reference service, organization, storage, new alert

service, retrieval and dissemination of information also electronic services like online

literature search, CD-ROM search, development of the local database, document delivery

service and patent information service, have become easy to handle.

24



(Mukhopadhyay & Das, 2008) The Internet is the outcome of ICT. The web has given

rise to social networking which is enabling individuals to connect, share and contribute

globally. This paper explains how the concept web 2.0 can be utilized in libraries and that

is called Lib 2.0. Most libraries are engaged incontent creation and giving services but

with this new concept library user’s participation in the creation of content and

community is focused. It also helps to design and implement library services by boosting

feedback and participation. In this digital environment, it is a must that libraries should

communicate with their users instead on relying traditional way of communication that

has been taking place from centuries. The Lib 2.0 tools derived from Web 2.0 has

positive impact giving as far as web-based services. They are Blogs, Digg, Flickr, Instant

Messaging, Jumpout, Library Thing, Mashups, MySpace and Facebook, Paper

BackSwap, Podcasts, RSS feeds, Second Life, Social Bookmarking, Tags and

Folksonomies, Technorati, Writely, command, YouTube.

(Dahibhate, Patil, & Mugade, 2014) Advancement in ICT gave rise to online learning.

Growth in search engines like Google and Wikis along with web tools like YouTube,

Facebook and Twitter have challenged library practices especially in providing reference

and information services. User’s perception towards print material shifted from textual to

online and that gave rise to Digital and Virtual libraries. The paper stressed on how

information services and practices got affected due to the emergence of ICT and speaks

about various digital libraries that came into existence. The types of digital libraries

mentioned area stand-alone digital library (SDL), Federated Digital Library (FDL) and

Harvested Digital Library (HDL). The structure of digital library highlights various

characteristics and formats of a digital library. As far as virtual libraries are concerned

they are libraries without walls. Their existence is virtual and not real. The structure of

virtual library explains the concepts and characteristics of a virtual library.

(Shukla, 2010) The book explores the concept of e-resources and makes efforts to

encompass each facet of e-resources in a nutshell. The experience of various libraries

shows that with the right combination of content and access technologies, e-resources can

be very helpful to users in availing information and knowledge services while librarians

25



can create more dynamic, relevant and flexible collections themselves as essential

resources for libraries and their users in the present context. The chapters in the book talk

about what, why and how e-resources; tools and techniques managing e-resources; library

web content management; networking techniques for e-resources; e-resources archive

and digital preservation; retrieval of information from e-resources, cataloguing of e-

resources; cross reference and resource identification in electronic environment; e-

resources licensing; Open access, e-resources, public domain and digital copyright.

(Veer & Kshirsagar, 2016) ICT is a collective term. It is a combination of computers,

telecommunications and microelectronics. The phenomenal increase in information lead

to information explosion and created an opportunity for information communication

system. The present study is restricted with Deemed Universities in Maharashtra to find

out their ICT status. Total nineteen universities wereshortlisted for the study and the

response rate was 100%. The questionnaire distributed to students and faculties and the

response rate 69.82%. The major suggestions highlight that there is very less collection of

e-books, e-journals, audio-visual collection, hardware availability and electronic

resources. Only 64.22% of the user use OPAC. There is no uniformity in selection of

software. A number of computers with the Internet connection are very less. Installation

of RFID and CCTV is a must for security and vigilance and lastly, a central library is a

must.

(Jain & Babbar, 2006) Information is the pivot and is very vital for the economic and

social development of society. The emergence of ICT gave rise to many other

technologies and the evolution of Digital Library is a part of it. With Digital library it has

become easy to store, retrieve, disseminate and duplicate information in fast and efficient

manner. Due to the change in national scenario many organizations started converting

their content into online and the concept of digital library becomeamandatory element.

The Department of Information and Communication Technology of India also established

the Digital Library of India. Only erratic and fractional attempts have been made towards

Digital Library of India (DLI). The basic aim of establishing DL in India is to secure art,

culture and heritage of the country. The study suggests various problems, challenges and

26



issues encountered while developing DLI. The steps initiated by DLI are still in nascent

and embryonic stage. Under the ministry of Communication and Information

Technology; Government of India; the Department of Electronics and Information

Technology (DeitY); the project of National Digital Library is a positive move and it can

be said that the country is serious about National Digital Library formation.

(Bandi & Ramakrishnegowda, 2013) University libraries always occupy a central

position and are considered as a higher source of learning. Whether it is state government

or central government funded, university libraries are more capable in imparting

scientific and technical knowledge by facilitating sophisticated, relevant and exhaustive

information. The paper highlights the requisite of network, consortia, subject gateways

and portals, digital library, marketing of LIS products, knowledge management and

technical capabilities of a librarian. It also talks about initiatives taken by the Government

of India and the role of INFLIBNET and NKC are explained.

(Shaikh M. , Application of Cloud Computing Model in Libraries: An Introduction,

2016) In the past few decades, there was a drastic improvement in ICT. The practices and

processes of almost all endeavors affected and libraries progressed tremendously and

exponentially. Due to rapid growth in data on the Internet where the storage capability is

under a scanner, a new technology called Cloud Computing came to surface. This

technology is basically a subscription based service and gives solution to all your

Information Technology related problems. Cloud Computing as the name suggest is a

metaphor for the Internet. Cloud service providers offer services for any application,

storage, communication, collaborationand infrastructure. Cloud Computing is a

subscription base service working through the Internet. Cloud Computing has the ability,

scalabilityand expandability which are essential and needed. It is known as on-demand

computing. The paper presents an application of cloud computing service models in

libraries that will reduce the workload and redundancy.

27



Summary

It is evident from the above review of literature that the importance and use of libraries

got attention due to the appearance of ICT. The publication of printed material was a

lengthy process and that is successfully replaced by ICT. Due to the Internet, textual print

converted into electronic print and the speed of generation of information increased by

unimaginable fold. Libraries on the other hand,handling information manually to

organize, retrieve and disseminate information. That is the point, the need of automation

of library felt and libraries were transformed from manual to automated libraries. At later

stage libraries began to convert even the contents and many digital libraries and

repositories started floating. Today almost every single operation of the library is online

and cannot be fulfilled without ICT.

2.2.2. Role of Software in Automation and Functionning of Libraries

(Gopal, 1999) Library automation was and is the major development in the last forty

years. Automation allows items to be processed and ready for the user quickly and

efficiently. With the advent of automation, job responsibilities and organizational

structure in technical services began to change even more rapidly than in the past.

Networking allows every library to get access to Online Public Access Catalogue

(OPAC) anytime and anywhere. The selection of software for automation was the biggest

challenge for librarians. Precautions and measures to be taken are explained in details in

this book.

(Faruqi, 1997) This work has been divided into two sections. Section ‘A’ deals with the

topics like manpower and automation, national automation of libraries, national data

serial system, national bibliographic database in MARC, information transfer, etc. In

section ‘B’ several useful chapters have been added. The information which is scantily

available like the history of microform activity, organization of microforms in the library,

microform as library resources advance and goals in micro photograph, policy questions

of duplications of photos and many more interesting chapters have been included.

28



(Jagadeesha & Mudhol, 1998) Library automation is a process that brought and will

continue to bring profound changes to the world of library, in terms of both technology

and the involvement of people. Library automation is perceived in a single sense as a

procedure of mechanization of library operations which are of a routine and repetitive

nature. This covers usually housekeeping operations such as acquisition, serial control,

cataloguing and circulation. However today it is expanded to online OPAC, networking,

desktop publishing, office automation, hypermedia, multimedia, etc. The book explains

the early stage of computers and entirely focused on programming language FoxPro 2.0

for automating library.

(Chandra, 2005) In this age of science and technology, the global information revolution

is becoming more visible and useful in many diverse ways. Undoubtedly, digital libraries

are now trying to provide increasing volume of scholarly electronic information to their

clients with varying success around the country. Digital technology offers multiple and

simultaneous desired information quickly that are not simply possible through any other

method of information stored in a library. At the same time, reading and understanding

information in digital form requires necessary equipment and software. The book

explains the role of the Internet and digital library in information technology, networking,

information techniques and preservation methods.

(Ramalingam , 2000) Library automation technology is one of the major tools to shape

our society and institutions particularly our libraries. New publishing techniques such as

CD-ROM, machine-readable text files on the Internet, collections of scanned materials

stored in image and character formats are increasingly becoming key parts to library

resources. These collections are accessed and controlled through specialized software.

The book explains the use of computers in library, online computer services, library

networking, electronic service delivery and LAN software used in various countries of

the world.

(Ganguly, 2007) Libraries today are no longer confined within the formidable looking

building and walls housing countless books on various fields of knowledge. The

29



technological revolution that has swept the world and ensured that from stone tablets to

paper rolls to printed books and now digital libraries without walls, the mediumand

modes of operation of an organization like a library has indeed travelled a long way. This

book comprises a well-structured, comprehensive compilation to cover the current

technologies, electronic publishing, repositories, digital reference, cataloguing,

classification, digital archiving and preservation.

(Nigam & Kataria , 2008) The digital environment is an unavoidable necessity of every

modern library. Due to the change in the information seeking behavior of the readers, the

concepts of library services is also changing. Readers need information on digital

devices. Librarians have to prepare for this new challenge. It is very satisfying that the

new generation of librarians are ready to meet any threat and challenge from their field.

The book contains twenty-two chapters on different aspects of digital processing. The

first chapter itself emphasizes the need of librarians on electronic information. As the

economy is booming every day, librarians have to think of e-commerce libraries. The

book also discusses about library automation, use of software, digitalization, barcode

technology, security and network system. Much emphasize is given on digitalization

which includes process, technology, systems and managerial problems. The role of UGC

Info-net, electronic journals, search engines, open access software is some of the areas of

concern.

(Rao, 1990) The advents of electronic computer and development in telecommunication

and audio-visual technologies have opened up new possibilities in information handling.

However, there are not many libraries that have undergone training or equipped

themselves to computerize their libraries. Despite nationwide awareness of computers

and related services, very few libraries made an attempt to computerize some of the

activities in their respective libraries. Based on his teaching and research experience, the

author in this book made an attempt to discuss computer and its applications to library

and information field. The book mostly deals with overview of computers,

computerization of housekeeping operations, hardware and software requirements.

30



(Tiwari, 2006) A digital library is a library in which a significant proportion of resources

are available in machine with readable format, accessible by means of computers. The

digital content may be locally held or accessed remotely via computer networks. Digital

libraries can immediately adopt innovations in technology providing users with

improvements in electronic and audio book technology as well as presenting new forms

of communication such as wikis and blogs. The book attempts to provide all basic aspects

of digital library. It describes the revolutionary changes brought out by digital libraries in

the entire concept of library organization, managementand operations. The book contents

include digital collections, classification, archives, cataloguing, preservation, software,

information infrastructure, access and evaluation of digital information.

(Sehgal, 1998) Software packages are written by a variety of organizations which include

other libraries, computer, manufacturers, specialist firms, academic and research

institutions, government bodies and so on. Some organizations and people are more

reputed than others and it is probably worth paying more for software from a reputed

organization or a person as it is less likely to develop unforeseen bugs and more likely to

be maintained and enhanced. The book describes the details of packages suitable for

particular applications, what needs to be considered before purchasing the software,

vendor profile, pricing, configurations, hardware and software compatibility, operating

system platform, security and threats, catalogue functions, search methods, configuring

the patron database, on-line circulation and at last various commercial software available

and their details are given.

(Singh, 2007) A computerized library is always better than a manually operated library in

terms of organizing, processing and dissemination of information to the users effectively

and efficiently. Application of information technology in the organization and services of

library have brought about a sea change in the functioning of libraries in the last two

decades throughout the world. Librarians need to acquire necessary skills in handling

these technologies for the effective and efficient provision of library services. This book

covers the various aspects of computer applications in libraries and information centers.

31



It gives information about operating systems, software selection criteria, use of barcode

technology, RFID technology resource sharing and networking.

(Sangma, 2013) Library automation has developed rapidly in recent years and impacted

library services at every level. Library automation systems can be tailored to meet each

library’s needs. Most of the libraries use automated system to streamline the process of

creating item records and use these records to check items in and out. Automation system

also allows patrons to access online catalog where they can search records online from

home. With the advent of digital contents and e-books borrowing, libraries are again

redefining how library automation systems can be used. This book states library

information system and automation; the configuration of machine; software and

programming languages; database management systems; library system analysis and

design; library information services and computers and library information network.

(Rajesekaran , Nair, & Nafala, 2010) Digital libraries and archives are organized

collections of documents in digital form. They may contain documents in different

formats ranging from manuscripts, diaries, letters, books, research papers, reports

newspapers, periodicals, photographs, maps, videotapes, audio files, etc. To collect,

organize and manage them in a retrievable way and provide access to them from distant

locations needs hardware and software solutions meant for that. This manual intended to

introduce the application of free software tools developed by UNESCO with the objective

to empower the users by giving them access to key technology for development and

knowledge sharing that most of them otherwise cannot afford. The manual explains

without technical jargon the methods for developing and managing digital archives,

digital libraries and e-document collections using WINISIS and GenISIS, making them

accessible with search mechanisms over the Intranet/ Internet using GenISISWEB,

publishing them with search engine in CDROMs using GenISISCD and also converting

such collections to Greenstone for publication on the Web or in CDROM. This manual

can help create electronic publications with search and full-text retrieval facility and

launch digital libraries/ archives of full text, image, audio and video files, accessible over

the web using free software developed by UNESCO.

32



(Asari, 2009) Library is perhaps the most appropriate place for applying information

technology. The definition of modern computer and that of library coincides. Modern

computers collect, process store and disseminate information. Library is also a place

where information is collected, processed, stored and disseminated. The content of the

book includes an overview of information technology and scope and development of

computers and classifications of computer. This book refers computer hardware and

software is the key for library automation and creating digital library. The book also

covers in a nutshell programming languages. Library automation software like SOUL,

Alice and Libsys application are covered along with other software for example

Microsoft Office (Word, Excel and Power Point) are also covered.

(Sharma, 1993) Initially computer was invented as a calculating machine but with the

passage of time it underwent a variety of change and improvements. Today’s computer is

an electronically activated device which operates under given programs, accepts and

stores desired data; turns data into information by analyzing and processing. Its splendid

speed and high level accuracy adds to our knowledge by retrieving and disseminating the

required information pin pointedly, exhaustively and expeditiously. The book gives

historical background, generation, classification, hardware and architecture of computer.

Notable among the contents are operating system, software and application software

packages related to library and information science.

Summary

The emergence of ICT enabled computers in the world to get connected with each other

and international network (the Internet) has become popular in all fields of study and

learning including library and information science. All manual systems transformed into

online and libraries too automated their system. For automation of libraries required

software and there are various types of software for example - Application Software,

System Software and Custom Software. It is also very important to note that for writing

software required a strong programming language. The popularity of software depends

upon the kind of programming language it is written in. Selection of library automation

requires proper knowledge and planning, evaluation of best available software, budget,

33



hardware requirements, operating system and more importantly maintenance. The

selected library automation should be user friendly, well designed screens, logically

arranged functions, minimal training, multi user and unlimited user access, multilingual,

multimedia, support at international standards. Library automation must have modules

like acquisition, cataloguing, circulation, serial control, administration, OPAC and

reports.

2.2.3. Open Source Software basics

(Cholin, Study of the application of information technology for effective access to

resources in Indian University Libraries, 2005) OSS can be used freely without having to

pay license fees to its developers. It has been released under the standard license called

General Public License (GPL) which specifies that software can be used, modified and

distributed for free. Under GPL, software can be changed and enhanced, but the new

version must also be released under the same terms. With OSS, the underlying source

code must be made available along with the binary version that actually runs on a

computer. Releasing source code reveals all the details of an application's inner workings.

In the open source arena, this facilitates collaborative development. In the commercial

arena, releasing source code can be a fundamental contradiction to basic business

principles.”

(Randal, The Open Source Definition, No date) The Open Source Initiative (OSI) defined

the Open Source. The following ten points suggest the same:


giving away the software. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for

such sale.

2. Source Code: The program must include source code, and must allow

distribution. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code.

3. Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and

must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the

original software.

34



4. Integrity of the Author's Source Code: The license may restrict source code

that modifications are distributed as ‘patch files’. In addition, the license should

contain that derived works and hold a different name or version number from the

original software.

5. No Discrimination against Persons or Groups: The license must not

discriminate against any person or group of persons.

6. No Discrimination against Fields of Endeavor: The license must not restrict

anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor.

7. Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to


license by those parties.

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: The license must not be specific to

a particular product or distribution.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: The license must not place

restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software.

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: No provision of the license may be


(Stallman R. , 2016)“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and

community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute,

study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not

price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in

“free beer”

“A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your

computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing

this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.

Access to the source code is a precondition for this.”

35



(Wikipedia, Open Source Movement, 2012) “In the late 1970s and early 1980s, two

different groups were establishing the roots of the current Open Source Software

movement. On the east coast, Richard Stallman, formerly of the MIT AI lab, created the

GNU project and the Free Software Foundation. The GNU project aimed to create a free

operating system and used the GNU General Public License (GPL) as the software

license to prohibit commercialization of the software, but allow redistribution and

modification. Open source was created and adopted by a group of people in the free

software movement at a strategy session held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to

Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator. Later in

February 1998, an organization called Open Source Initiative (OSI) was founded by

Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond ―as an educational, advocacy and stewardship

organization at a cusp moment in the history of that culture.”

(Bretthauer, Open Source Software: A History, 2002) The history of OSS traces back

thirty years ago, where it finally marked its presence somewhere around 1998. The span

of thirty years from 1970 to 2000 OSS began as an assumption without a name or a clear

alternative. “This paper traces the evolution of three operating systems: GNU, Berkeley

Software Distribution (BSD) and Linux, as well as the communities that have evolved

with these systems and some of the commonly used software packages developed using

the open source model. It also discusses some of the major figures in OSS and defines

both free and Open Source Software.”

(Randal, Open Source Initiative, No date) “Open source licenses are those licenses that

comply with the Open Source Definition — in brief, they allow software to be freely

used, modified and shared. To be approved by the Open Source Initiative (also known as

the OSI), a license must go through the Open Source Initiative's license review process.

Some of the licenses are Apache License 2.0, BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised"

license, BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" or "FreeBSD" license, GNU General Public License

(GPL), GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL), MIT license, Mozilla

Public License 2.0, Common Development and Distribution License, Eclipse Public

License.”

36

https://opensource.org/osd

https://opensource.org/approval

https://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0

https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause



https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license

https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license

https://opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license

https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

https://opensource.org/licenses/MPL-2.0

https://opensource.org/licenses/MPL-2.0

https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0

https://opensource.org/licenses/EPL-1.0

https://opensource.org/licenses/EPL-1.0



(Asay, 2007) The Barracuda Networks has done a survey and 228 participants were asked

about what advantages OSS has over Proprietary Software and vice versa. The factors

which have edge over proprietary software is Price, Source Code Access, Community

Code Review, Bug Fixation, Security, Code Quality, Best Product Functionality, Easier

to adopt in Organization sand IP protection.

(Đurković, Vuković, & Raković, 2008) The paper points to OSS in software

development, characteristics of OSS measured in the form of its advantages and

disadvantages and comparison of OSS with commercial software. The model of OSS is a

bazaar compare to commercial is a cathedral. The resources of proprietary software are

known, whereas OSS is unknown. The planning period of proprietary software is limited

to the whole project, whereas OSS is step by step. The users of proprietary software have

to pay the cost and in OSS it is free of cost. In proprietary software the target is to fulfill

the contract and in OSS to solve the problem. In proprietary software development is

secret and in OSS it is public.

(Anil, Kumar, & Chahar, 2011) OSS does not mean just source code is open. The

distribution terms of OSS must confirm with certain criteria laid down by Open Source

Initiative i.e. Free Redistribution, Source Code disclosure, Derived Works, Integrity of

Author's Source Code, No Discrimination Against a Person or Groups, No

Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour, Distribution of License, License Must Not

Be Specific to a Product, License Must Not Restrict Other Software and License Must Be

Technology-Neutral. Anil and Chahar explains that “The promise of open source is better

quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, low cost and an end to predatory vendor lock-

in” are the key features and on the bases of this OSS future is bright.

(Almeida, Oliveira, & Cruz, 2011) Interoperability is a major tool for any computer to

operate with other products. Software companies ensure the application they devised gets

connected or is compatible with the product. There are high chances of maximum

utilization of that application. This ability of interconnection is called interoperability.

37



“The role of open standards in interoperability is analyzed and some of the policies

introduced by the European Union for the use and dissemination inside member states are

examined. Additionally, the use of Open Source Software combined with open standards

is presented and its major social benefits and economic impacts are highlighted.”

(Johnson, 2008) It is obvious that when any new change comes to effect there is

resistance from other side to accept and implement and OSS is not free from adoption

and criticism. This paper examines what are the resistance factors and what are the

measures libraries come out of such resistance.

(Raymond, The Cathedral and Bazaar, 2001) The book describes two methods of

software development. The title of the book signifies two concepts in software

development. One is cautiously planned as the project of cathedral building, while on the

other side the concept of OSS production which is based on communication between

participants of an oriental bazaar. The book is a collection of essays that shows the

culture of computer hackers, programmers and managers. The book is not that

fundamentally advanced; it describes OSS, and process of systematically harnessing,

open development.

(DiBona, Cooper, & Stone, 2006) This book is a collection of thought provoking essays

of present technological leaders. These essays explore the impact of open source on

software industry and reveal how open source concepts appeal to a broad audience.

Software developers will find thoughtful reflections on practices and methodology from

leading open source developers. The power of collaboration enabled by the Internet and

Open Source Software is changing the world in ways which we can’t imagine. Open

Source 2.0 further develops evolutionary picture that emerges with the original Open

Source and expands the transformative open source philosophy.

(Kavanagh, 2004) This book is written for professional managers and implementers of

information technology who are not currently experts in Open Source Software, but who

will over years evaluate it and then in many cases adopt technologies, tools and practices

38



for themselves and their teams. This is a self-teaching guide to the issue range from

business and social concerns through technology and architecture to cookbook style

details.

(Stallman R. M., 2010) The book is a collection of essays on free software and free

society. In this second edition of the book, patents are explained in one section and

copyright in another to set an example of not grouping together these two laws whose

workings and effects on software are totally different. Another section presents the GNU

licenses with a new introduction written with Brett Smith giving their history and the

motives for each of them. One of the essays explains why software projects should be

upgraded to version three of the GNU General Public License.

(Fogel, 2005) The book tackles this very complex topic by distilling it down into easily

understandable parts. Starting with the basics of project management, it details specific

tools used in free software projects, including version control, IRC, bug tracking and

Wikis. The author of this book known for his work on CVS and subversion offers

practical advice on how to set up and use a range of tools in combination with open

mailing lists and archives. He also provides several chapters on the essentials of

recruiting and motivating developers, as well as how to gain much-needed publicity for

your project.

(Hahn, 2002) This volume, commissioned by the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for

Regulatory Studies, the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research -

Washington, D.C. and the Brookings Institution - Washington, D.C, is one in a series that

contributes to the ongoing debate over the regulation of high technology industries __ and

in particular, the information technology industry. They invited four leading experts to

address the policy issues associated with what has come to be known as “open source”

software. OSS, such as the Linux computer operating system, is usually available without

any charges. Moreover, in contrast to the most proprietary software, such as the Windows

operating system, individuals can modify it because they have access to the underlying

source code written in widely understood programming languages. The book addresses

39



several issues related to OSS, including the role for government subsidies for research

and development, government procurement policy and patent policy. The contributor to

this volume offers diverse views on a phenomenon that has become a touchstone for

controversy in the information technology business. The goal is to highlight the

fundamental areas of agreement and disagreement on government policy toward Open

Source Software.

(Koch, 2005) The organization of this book is intended to reflect the very different

research approaches taken in the field of free and Open Source Software development.

Therefore, the chapters have been grouped into no less than six parts, each dealing with a

slightly different focus or outlook. Section I: F/OSS Development - “Intensive Analysis”

contains three chapters. They all deal with a small number of projects and detail several

facets of them. Section II: F/OSS Development and Software Engineering Practices -

Extensive Analysis. This chapter has its focus on the role of a single concept from

traditional software engineering literature in free and Open Source Software development

and its analysis of several projects in common, therefore providing an example of

extensive research. Section III: F/OSS Projects as Social Constructs contains two

chapters that take a distinctly sociological position and foremost view free and open

source projects as social constructs. Section IV: Simulating F/OSS Development -

“Dynamic Swarms”. Section V: F/OSS Development Interacting with Commercial and

Public Organizations. Section VI: Implications of the F/OSS Development Model – “The

Broad Picture.”

(Weber, 2004) Open source as an emerging technological community that seemed to

solve very tricky but basically familiar problems. The book argues that the open source

community has done something even more important by experimenting with fundamental

notions of what constitutes property. This community has reframed and recast some of

the most basic problems of governance. At the same time, it is remaking the politics and

economics of the software world. If you believe that software constitutes at once some of

the core tools and core rules for the future of how human beings work together to create

40



wealth, beauty, new ideas and solutions to problems, then to understand how open source

can change those processes is very important.

(Feller, Fitzgerald, Hissam, & Lakhani, 2005) This book is a collection of essays on the

perspective of OSS. The essays range from motivation to use of OSS, understanding free

software developers, economic perspective, evaluation of OSS, future of OSS, free open

source processes and tools, OSS engineering and legal aspects of OSS.

Summary

The above section describes that OSS does not mean the source code is open but the

distribution terms of OSS must confirm with certain criteria laid down by Open Source

Initiative. The advantages of OSS include - view source code, change and redistribute

source code, avoid proprietary information formats, allow integration between products,

reduce software licensing cost and efforts, develop and deploy effectively internationally,

draw from a large pool of skilled professionals. Good examples of OSS include Apache

Web Server, Linux operating system and GNU C/C++ language suite. These programs

are huge and have been used by millions of people over many years and have developed a

reputation for reliability and customer satisfaction. OSS, understanding free software

developers; economic perspective; evaluation of OSS; future of OSS; free open source

processes and tools; OSS engineering; legal aspects; advantages; history and movement

of OSS are some of the areas covered in this section.

2.2.4. Open Source Software used in Academic and Research Libraries

(Chudnov, Barnett, Prasad , & Wilcox, 2005) The purpose of this paper is to introduce

the Unalog software system, a free and open source toolkit for social book marking in

academic environments. The history, objectives, features and technical design of Unalog

is presented, along with a discussion of planned enhancements.

(Mah & Stranack, 2005) This paper describes the development of OSS dbwiz in Simon

Fraser University. It also analysis other federated search tools, review of literature,

observations and description of the development process at Simon Fraser University.

41



(Willinsky, 2005) Open Journal System is an OSS to manage and publish scholarly

journals, which reduce developing and publishing cost. OJS can be downloaded from

(http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs). The article gives review of the journal management software

called Open Journal System (OJS) and presents history, development, features of OJS

and early research.

(Witten & Bainbridge, 2005) The Greenstone software is complete software for building

digital library. It is a new way of organizing and publishing information on the Internet.

The paper presents Greenstone Digital Library and how librarians can create and

customize Greenstone and build their digital collection, customization, document

uploading.

(Molyneux & Rylander, 2010) Evergreen is library management software that works at

consortium level. It is an OSS developed by Georgia Public Library Service (GPLS). The

purpose of this paper is to highlight the features and technicality of Evergreen library

management software.

(Biswas & Paul, 2010) Dspace and Greenstone are widely used digital library software

across the globe. They have achieved the popularity and many libraries are using them.

This article takes the retrospective account of the usage, development and challenges.

The use of Dspace and Greenstone also tested with points of improvements. For that a

survey is also conducted in this paper.

(Cherukodan, Kumar, & Kabir, Using open source software for digital libraries a case

study of CUSAT, 2013) Creating digital library becomes one of the mandatory aspects

for developed libraries. Digital libraries allows user to have remote access to the holdings

of library. It cuts the barrier of space and time of the users. Cochin University of Science

and Technology uses DSpace and gives access to their digital contents to the users. The

study insures the structure, contents and usage. An evaluative approach is carried out to

assess the features of CUSAT digital library.

42



(Muller, 2011) This paper evaluates twenty- OSS Library Management Software and

gives a clear cut understanding to libraries and helps them to consider certain points

before the selection of Library and Management Software. The entire process is based on

three steps. The first step is to gather relevant OSS library management software and the

second step is the evaluation of the community behind OSS license. Third step is the

analysis of functions and features to determine which software is best suited for libraries.

(Dhamdhere, 2011) Libraries are using various OSS for automation of their libraries.

ABCD stands for (Automatisación de Bibliotécas y Centros de Documentación) is

software based on UNESCO’s ISIS technology. It is the combined software for library

automation and content management. The automation includes web OPAC, acquisition,

serial control, bibliographic database management, library portal, circulation, extensive

reports, pooling of bibliographic records from other libraries includes Library of

Congress, Oxford University, University of Toronto etc. through the Z39.50 protocol.

(Barve & Dahibhate, Open Source Software for Library Services, 2012) This paper

explains the various use of OSS that can be implemented for giving services to the users

including benefits and drawback. It gives an overview of nearly fifty OSS software

starting from library automation, to digital library, audio/ video recording of talks,

content management, citation management, journal management, website downloading,

conference management, e-Learning management, wiki management, next generation

OPAC’s, electronic journal archiving and meta federated searching.

(Shaikh & Mugade, 2016) The paper advocates the use of OSS in academic libraries. It

gives the account of popular licenses, OSS projects, Ranganathan’s five laws verses OSS,

reasons and problems associated with OSS and lastly in tabulated format various

category-wise OSS with the information about the developer, license, software language

and the address of website from where the software can be downloaded.

(Rawtani & Chidambaram, 2009) This paper discovers that Content Management

Software is one the most essential software used in library. Drupal is the OSS widely

43



used in libraries because of its features. The paper explains what is the CMS requirement

matrix, what is Drupal, Why Drupal is the best CMS, utilization of Drupal as a Library

portal and salient features of Drupal in context to Lib 2.0.

(Masrek & Hakimjavadi, 2012) Libraries receive a large number of theses and

dissertations. It becomes hectic for libraries to store, manage, retrieve and disseminate the

same. OSS has a solution for this problem. A number of electronic theses and dissertation

software or institutional repositories are available that manage these electronically. This

paper examines some of the popular institutional repositories and they are DSpace, Eprint

and Fedora. The goal of this paper was to appraise fifty-nine features of three widely

utilized open source IR solutions.

(Burge, 2012) Joomla is a powerful Content Management Software. It helps to create

web sites and millions of libraries are using Joomla for building websites and to upload

contents of library. This book step by step gives hands-on practical explanation to the

beginners. Its coverage includes the understanding what Joomla does and how it works,

installation, adding text, images, links and formatting, contact forums, banners, managing

site versions in multiple languages, back up and updating sites.

(Lee & Ware, 2005) Open Source technologies are proving contemporary developers

with a range of cost-effective and robust alternatives to commercial software for building

dynamic, data-driven web applications. This practical guide presents a comprehensive

survey of LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, Perl and PHP) and shows how these solutions

can be implemented efficiently and securely. It focuses core material necessary so that

developers can begin to build applications.

(Engard, 2010) This book gives information of various practical OSS which can be used

in a library. It gives overview of some of the OSS like library automation, digital library,

content management, office suite, desktop publishing, audio editing, web browsers,

wikis, instant messaging, photo editing, OSS media applications and research tools.

44



(Tripathi, Prasad, & Mishra, 2010) This book is the outcome of National Seminar on OSS

solutions held at the Department of Library and Information Science - Banaras Hindu

University, Varanasi in 2009. The book covers twenty-two essays on OSS where scholars

have shared their experience with OSS, case studies and surveys are mentioned. The

areas mostly covered are library management system, digital libraries, e-Publishing,

federated searching, consortium management etc.

Summary

It is to summarize that OSS has a huge role to play in academic and research libraries.

The above referred research work shows that OSS is used extensively giving various

information technology based services to users. Only it matters that libraries and

librarians should be equipped to utilize such facilities. However, it is seen that many

libraries dither to work with OSS. It is just the hesitation of handling new technology and

they want someone else on their behalf to take a lead and give them readymade solution

for their libraries. This is sheer discontentment towards accepting new tools ICT is

offering.

2.2.5. Published Theses and Special Issues on Open Source Software

(Barve, An Evaluation of Open Source Software for Building Digital Libraries, 2008)

The study covers the evaluation of selected OSS digital library software. It does not rank

any software but generally highlights the importance of each selected OSS for digital

library. It evaluates software such as CDS-Invenio, DSpace, Doks, EPrints, Fedora,

Greenstone, MyCore, and Sops.

(Sawant, 2009) Open Access (OA) paved way for Institutional Repositories (IR). The

present study examines the status of institutional repositories developed in India from two

perspectives IR development and management and users of institutions having IR. The

main aim was to identify the varied range of practices, development and management of

IR. It is to outline the efforts in progress towards developing IR for achieving open

access.

45



(Chouhan, 2010) The study covers the importance of library automation and evaluates

library management OSS. Software includes CDS/ISIS, WINISIS, Koha, Greenstone

Digital Library (GSDL), and Open Journal System (OJS).

(Sunil, 2011) The study evaluates Open Source Integrated Library System (OSILS)

useful for college libraries. It examines four OSLIS that is Evergreen, Koha, NewGenLib

and PMBILS. The evaluation criterion is based on modules such as acquisition, serial

control, technical processing, circulation and OPAC. The assessment of selected software

is based on scores but it does not signify that the maximum score OSS is the best.

(Atri, 2012) The study presents the overview need, importance and benefits of library

automation. It gives classification and outline of some OSS and Commercial library

management software packages and finally gives comparative analysis of both OSS and

Commercial software.

(Bhavsar, 2013) The study undertakes to ascertain the best OSS for integrated library

system, digital library, web content management and e-learning for the functioning of the

libraries. It gives viable options to set out of the commercial vendors and to develop own

software to meet the needs of libraries.

(Cherukodan, Measuring the Maturity of Open Source Software for Digital Libraries: a

Case Study of DSpace, 2015) As specified by the title it is the study of DSpace, an open

source digital library software. It studies and measures the maturity of selected software

based on quality, longevity and finished product. Various maturity models are applied to

test selected software.

(DESIDOC, 2012) DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology (DJLIT) is

an open access bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal that publishes articles related to

application of information technology in library and information science. The topic of the

journal covers automation, digitalization, networks, hardware and software development.

The journal is indexed in Scopus, LISA, LISTA, OpenJGate, DOAJ, etc. The journal has

46



published a special issue on the use of OSS for libraries. The issue was published in

September 2012, Volume 32, Issue 5. More than twelve articles were written by eminent

library science professionals and stressed the need to adopt OSS tools in libraries.

(Elsevier, 2003) This special issue of the journal Research Policy is devoted to ‘Open

Source Software Development’ where nine articles were written and the entire issue is

divided into three major headings i.e. motivations of contributions to open source

projects; how the innovation process functions and competitive dynamics of OSS.

(Emerald Insight, 2005) The Emerald Group Publishing Limited published a special issue

on OSS in its journal ‘Library Hi Tech’. The journal covers thirteen articles on use of

open source in library and information centers. Scott Muir in his guest editorial speaks

about OSS development, historical background and success of OSS in libraries.

(Library and Information Technology Association ALA, 2002) The journal Information

Technology and Libraries is a publication of Library and Information Technology

Association, a division of American Library Association (ALA) publishes material

related to information technology in libraries. This special issue is dedicated to OSS

which covers seven articles on the historical background of OSS and the possibilities of

OSS in libraries.

(University of Kashmir, 2011) Trends in Information Management (TRIM) is a biannual

journal of the department of library and information science University of Kashmir. The

journal has published a special issue on ‘Open Source Software System: Challenges and

Opportunities’ where sixteen articles were contributed by authors. It talks about various

institutional repositories; open source strengths and weaknesses; open source operating

system and open access research output of the University of Kashmir.

Summary

The above national and international published theses and special issues dedicated to

OSS suggest that the library and information science fraternity has taken due cognizance

47



of open source. Those institutions are reputed centers of learning. After careful study they

have preferred using OSS and many of them switched from commercial to open source.

They have made a substantial effort to publicize the importance of OSS and strongly

advocate that OSS must be adopted in libraries. They are a viable solution and cheap

alternative to save IT cost, redundancy and give a platform to library science professional

to build a strong community to interconnect libraries. Apart from research theses; special

issues; many national and international conferences; seminars and workshops have taken

place to give insight, spread awareness and training of OSS.

Summary of the Chapter

The advent of ICT transformed the entire globe and the library is not an exception. With

its new re-oriented form libraries are serving a larger community via telecommunication

technologies that includes fiber optics, wireless applications, cloud computing,

networking, digital and audiovisual technology. All this opens a new avenue and has a

great impact on storage and retrieval capabilities of libraries. Due to ICT traditional

methods of library and information center changed into electronic hub where the entire

library service can be offered through computers. Any new technology is attached with

various problems and Library and Information Centers are facing unprecedented

challenges due to changes in form and access to their collection on one hand and more

refined services to their clientele on the other hand in ICT era. However the task is not so

easy where varied information technology tools are available. It is expected from

librarians to accomplish this in an intensively IT environment. Another issue is pertaining

to financial and economical part is that libraries have to make IT services cost effective.

Most of the library’s finance is consumed for hiring manpower, infrastructure and

collection development. At the end there is a scarcity of funds and libraries are forced to

curtail down their information technology related expenditure. On the other hand OSS is

offering free and standardized software to libraries without any licensing fees. OSS is

occupying top position as compared to other types of software. The OSS movement has

liberated librarians from the paws of unscrupulous vendors who wish to monopolize the

library market. OSS follows community driven development model where inputs are

shared in the form of experiences of library professionals for the further growth of

48



software. The implementation of OSS has been seen in e-learning, e-governance and e-

publishing. Libraries can also adopt this new technology for giving better and prompt

services to their patrons. It’s time for librarians to stand firm and say no to vendor

locking. They must handle this problem themselves and avoid exploitation, as far as

embracing new technologies is concerned. The above literature review revealed

innumerable OSS which should be given priority over proprietary software. Professional

forums both online and offline are good platforms to discuss difficulties and share mutual

experiences. National and international published theses, special issues conferences,

seminars and workshops dedicated to Open Source Software suggests that the library and

information science fraternity has taken due cognizance of Open Source Software.

********************

49



REFERENCES

Almeida, F., Oliveira, J., & Cruz, J. (2011, January). OPEN STANDARDS AND OPEN

SOURCE: ENABLING INTEROPERABILITY. International Journal of

Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), 2(1), 1-11.

Anil, Kumar, A., & Chahar, V. (2011, October). Awareness of Open Source Software

(OSS): Promises, Reality and Future. IJCSMS International Journal of Computer

Science and Management Studies, 11(3), 52-59.

Antherjanam, S., & Sheeja, N. (2008). Impact of ICT on Library and Information

Science: Major Shifts and Practices in CUSAT Central Library. 6th International

CALIBER, University of Allahbad (pp. 35-43). Allahbad: INFLIBNET.

Asari, R. (2009). IT for Librarians. New Delhi: I. K. International Publishing House.

Asay, M. (2007, October 2). Why choose proprietary software over open source? Survey

says! Retrieved December 25, 2015, from CNET:

http://www.cnet.com/news/whychooseproprietarysoftwareoveropensourcesurveys

ays/

Atri, Y. K. (2012). Free/ Open versus Commercial Software: A study of some selected

library management software . Thesis submitted to Shri Jagdish Prasad

Jhabarmal Tibrewala University for the degree of PhD. Rajasthan, India:

Department of Library Science Shri Jagdish Prasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala

University .

Bandi, I., & Ramakrishnegowda, K. (2013). Applications of ICT in University Libraries

in Maharashtra State: An Overview. In B. Ramesha, & B. Kumbar (Ed.), 58th ILA

International Conference on: Next Generation Libraries: New Insights and

Universal Access to Knowledge. (pp. 52-56). Dharwad: Indian Library

Association.

50



Barve, S. (2008, August). An Evaluation of Open Source Software for Building Digital

Libraries. Thesis submitted to the University of Pune for the degree of PhD. Pune,

Maharashtra, India: Department of Library and Information Science University of

Pune.

Barve, S., & Dahibhate, N. (2012, September). Open Source Software for Library

Services. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 32(5), 401-

408.

Bhavsar, S. A. (2013, April). Use and Application of Open Source Software in Libraries.

Thesis submitted to North Maharashtra University for the degree of PhD. Thane,

Maharashtra: Department of Library and Information Science North Maharashtra

University Jalgaon.

Biswas, G., & Paul, D. (2010, February). An evaluative study on the open source digital

library softwares for institutional repository: Special reference to Dspace and

greenstone digital library. International Journal of Library and Information

Science, 2(1), 1-10.

Bretthauer, D. (2002, March). Open Source Software: A History. Information Technology

and Libraries (Special Issue on Open Source Software), 21(1).

Burge, S. (2012). Joomla explained your step by step guide. India: Pearson.

Chandra, S. (2005). Library and Information Technology. New Delhi: Shree Publishers

and Distributors.

Cherukodan, S. (2015, August). Measuring the Maturity of Open Source Software for

Digital Libraries: a Case Study of DSpace. Thesis submitted to Cochin University

of Science and Technology for the degree of PhD in LIS. Kerala: Department of

Computer Applications Cochin University of Science and Technology.

Cherukodan, S., Kumar, G., & Kabir, S. (2013). Using open source software for digital

libraries a case study of CUSAT. The Electronic Library, 31(2), 217-225.

51



Cholin, V. (2005). Study of the application of information technology for effective access

to resources in Indian University Libraries. International Information and Library

Review, 37(3), 189-197.


to resources in Indian University Libraries. International Information and Library

Review, 37(3), 189-197.

Chouhan, L. (2010, August). Open Source Software (OSS) for Library Management: A

study. Thesis submitted to Associate ship in Information Science. New Delhi,

India: National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources

(NISCAIR/ CSIR).

Chudnov, D., Barnett, J., Prasad , R., & Wilcox, M. (2005). Experiments in academic

social book marking with Unalog. Library Hi Tech, 23(4), 469-480.

Dahibhate, N., Patil, S., & Mugade, V. (2014). Digital and Virtual Libraries:

Tranformation in Libraries and Information Services. In S. Inamdar , N. Khot, &

G. Buwa, Festschrift in Honour of Dr. N. I. Divtankar Parameters and

Perspectives of LIS Education (pp. 25-35). Varanasi: ABS Publication.

DESIDOC. (2012, September). Open Source Software for Libraries. DESIDOC Journall

of Library and Information Science, 32, 379-451.

Dhamdhere, S. N. (2011, December). ABCD, an Open Source Software for Modern

Libraries. Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 32, 1-17.

DiBona, C., Cooper, D., & Stone, M. (2006). Opne Source 2.0: The Continuing

Evolution. United States of America: O'Reilly.

Đurković, J., Vuković, V., & Raković, L. (2008, June). Open Source Approach in

Software Development - Advantages and Disadvantages. Management

Information Systems, 3(2), 29-33.

Elsevier. (2003, July). Open Source Software Development. Research Policy, 32(7),

1149-1292.

52



Emerald Insight. (2005). Special Issue: Open Source Software. Library Hi Tech, 23(4),

465- 621.

Engard, N. C. (2010). Practical Open Source Software for Libraries. UK: Chandos

Publishing.

Faruqi, K. (1997). Automation in Libraries. New Delhi: Anmol Prakashan.

Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B., Hissam, S., & Lakhani, K. (2005). Perspectives on Free and

Open Source Software. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Fogel, K. (2005). Producing Open Source Software. United States of America: O'Reilly.

Ganguly, R. (2007). Technology in Digital Libraries. Delhi: Isha Books.

Gopal, K. (1999). Modern Library Automation. New Delhi: Authorspress.

Hahn, R. W. (2002). Government Policy toward Open Source Software. Washington D.

C. : AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.

Hussain, A. (2013). ICT Based Library and Information Services. New Delhi: Ess Ess

Publication.

Islam , M., & Islam, M. (2006). Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in

Libraries: A New Dimension in Librarianship. Asian Journal of lnformation

Technology, 5(8), 809-817.

Jagadeesha , S., & Mudhol, M. (1998). Library Automation Using Foxpro 2.0. New

Delhi: Ess Ess Publication.

Jain, P., & Babbar, P. (2006). Digital Library Initiative in India. The International

Information and Library Review, 38(3), 161-169.

Johnson, K. (2008, Spring). Reducing Resistance to the Adoption of Open Source

Systems. Dalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management, 4, 1-9.

Kavanagh, P. (2004). Open Source Software: Implementation and Management. United

States of America: Elsevier.

53



Koch, S. (2005). Free/Open Source Software Development. United States of America:

Idea Group Publishing.

Lee, J., & Ware, B. (2005). Open Source Web Development with LAMP using Linex,

Apache, MySQL, Perl and PHP. India: Pearson.

Library and Information Technology Association ALA. (2002, March). Special Issue :

Open Source Software. Information Technology and Libraries, 21(1), 1- 35.

Mah, C., & Stranack, K. (2005). dbWiz: open source federated searching for academic

libraries. Library Hi Tech, 23(4), 490-503.

Masrek, M., & Hakimjavadi, H. (2012). Evaluation of Three Open Source Software in

Terms of Managing Repositories of Electronic Theses and Dissertations: A

Comparison Study. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(11),

10843-10852.

Mehta, S., & Kalra, M. (2006). Information and Communication Technologies: A bridge

for social equity and sustainable development in India. The International


Molyneux, R., & Rylander, M. (2010). The state of Evergreen : Evergreen at three.

Library Review, 59(9), 667-676.

Mukhopadhyay, P., & Das, S. (2008). Towards Library 2.0: Designing and Implementing

the Modern Library Service. 6th Convention Planner (pp. 197-204). Nagaland:

INFLIBNET.

Muller, T. (2011). How to choose a free and open source integrated library system.

Digital Library Perspectives, 27(1), 57-78.

Nigam, B., & Kataria , S. (2008). Digital Libraries ( A Festschrift volume of Professor R.

K. Raut). New Delhi: Mahamaya Publishing House.

Rajesekaran , K., Nair, R., & Nafala, K. (2010). Digital Library Basics a practical

manual. New Delhi: Ess Ess Publication.

54



Ramalingam . (2000). Library and Information Technology concepts to Application. New

Delhi: Kalpaz Publication.

Randal, A. (No date). Open Source Initiative. Retrieved August 12, 2014, from Open

Source: https://opensource.org/licenses

Randal, A. (No date). The Open Source Definition. Retrieved June 17th, 2013, from Open


Rao, R. (1990). Library Automation. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Limited.

Rawtani, M., & Chidambaram, S. (2009). Drupal: The Open Source Content

Management System Software Suit For Library With Library 2.0 Features. 7th

International CALIBER-2009 (pp. 176-183). Puducherry: INFLIBNET.

Raymond, E. S. (2001). The Cathederal and Bazar. United States of America: O'Reilly.

Raza, M. a. (2007). Use of information technology in University Libraries of Punjab,

Chandigarh and Himachal Pradesh: A Comparative Study. International


Saleem A, T. S. (2013). Application and Uses of Information Communication

Technology (ICT) in Academic Libraries: An Overview. International Journal of

Library Science, 2(3), 49-52.

Sangma, S. K. (2013). A Manual of Library Automation and Networking. New Delhi:

Centrum Press.

Sawant, S. (2009, May). Institutional Repository Initiatives in India : A Status Report.

Thesis submitted to SNDT Women's University for the degree of PhD. Mumbai,

Maharashtra, India: Department of Library and Information Science SNDT

Women's University.

Sehgal, B. L. (1998). Hand book of Library Software PAckages. New Delhi: Ess Ess

Publication.

55



Shaikh, M. (2016). Application of Cloud Computing Model in Libraries: An

Introduction. In A. Chikate , & P. Ghante, Library Management in Electronic

Environment. Agra: Y. K. Publishers.

Shaikh, M., & Mugade, V. (2016). Cutting the Proprietary Cord, Paradigm Shift & Soft

Solutions for Libraries: It's Open Source Software. In D. Veer, S. Chavan, & D.

Kalbande, Advanced Applications of ICT in Academic Libraries (pp. 124-137).

New Delhi: Agri Biovet Press.

Sharma, P. S. (1993). Library Computerisation Theory and Practice. New Delhi: Ess Ess

Publication .

Shukla, S. (2010). Electronic Resources Management What, Why and How. New Delhi:

Ess Ess Publication.

Singh D K, N. M. (2008). Impact of Information Technology and Role of Libraries in the

Age of Information and Knowledge Societies. 6th International CALIBER (pp.

28- 34). Ahmedabad: INFLIBNET.

Singh, G. (2007). Introduction to Computers for Library Professionals. New Delhi: Ess

Ess Publications.

Stallman, R. M. (2010). Free Software, Free Soceity (Selected Essays of Richard M.

Stallman) (2 ed.). Boston: Free Software Foundation.

Stallman, R. (2016, January 1). What is free Software. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from GNU

Operating System: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Sunil, M. (2011, September). An Analytical Study of OSS (Open Source Software) for

College Libraries. Thesis submitted to University of Mysore for the degree of

PhD. Manasagangotri, Mysore, India: Department of Studies in Library &

Information Science University of Mysore.

Tiwari, P. (2006). Digital Library. New Delhi: A P H Publishing Corporation.

56



Tripathi, A., Prasad, H., & Mishra, R. (2010). Open Source Library Solutions. New


University of Kashmir. (2011, July - December). Special Issue on Open Source Software

System: Challenges and Opportunities. (Prof. Shafi S.M, Ed.) Trends in

Information Management, 7(2), 74 - 246.

Veer, D., & Kshirsagar, S. (2016). Application of Information Technology in the Deemed

University Libraries in Maharashtra: An Evaluative Study. In D. Veer, S. Chavan

, & D. Kalbande , Advanced Applications of ICT in Academic Libraries (pp. 325-

331). New Delhi: Agri-Biovet Press.

Weber, S. (2004). The Success of Open Source. United Stated of America: Harvard

University Press.

Wikipedia. (2012, January 5). Open Source Movement. Retrieved March 17, 2013, from

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_movement

Willinsky, J. (2005). Open Journal Systems An example of open source software for

journal management and publishing. Library Hi Tech, 23(4), 504-519.

Witten , I., & Bainbridge, D. (2005). Creating digital library collections with Greenstone.

Library Hi Tech, 23(4), 541-560.

57

CHAPTER III

TRANSFORMATION OF ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES


3.1 Introduction 58

3.2 Historical Background of Ancient Libraries 58

3.3 Transformation of Libraries from Traditional to Cloud 62

3.4 Information and Communication Technology 67

3.5 Application of ICT in Libraries 70

3.6 Application of the Internet in Libraries 80

Summary 81

References

82

CHAPTER III TRANSFORMATION OF ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH

LIBRARIES

3.1 INTRODUCTION

It is the spoken language that comes before written. The progress of civilization compels

human beings to search for alternative and they evolved the concept of writing. In ancient

times teaching and learning process was done through spoken language. Scholars used to

teach orally and students used to memorize. At later stage wood, papyrus, copper plates,

parchment, clay tablets, and animal hides were used for writing. Gradually there appeared

a stage where libraries came out of the shackles of rulers and after the invention of

printing press, rolled in the hands of general public. Private collections of kings, scholars

and scientists resolved and finally settled in the center of learning. Public Libraries and

National Libraries gained momentum and many countries of the world established

libraries. One of the most significant accomplishments in the history of library is the

innovation of ICT that has brought radical change in the field of education. Libraries

transformed from traditional to modern. Technical set-up and the entire information

handling got renovated. The Internet proved a massive source of information and

enormous amount of information generated and accessed throughout the world.

Mentioned below are the brief details of transition of libraries from traditional to ICT era.

3.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF ANCIENT LIBRARIES

In ancient times, there was no difference between a library and a record room. Librarians

were treated as custodian of that recording room. Books were not for the general public

and treated as royal treasure for kings and emperors. It served as archives, sanctuaries for

sanctified lettering and reservoirs of literature and records. Earlier written knowledge was

on clay tablets and there was no existence of books. “A temple in the Babylonian town of

Nippur, dating from the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, was found to have a number

of rooms filled with clay tablets, suggesting a well-stocked archive or library. Similar

collections of Assyrian clay tablets of the 2nd millennium BCE were found at Tell el-

Amarna in Egypt.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2016) Numerous incidents occurred in the

58


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries history of world libraries which is difficult to mention. Instead, the researcher felt apt to

mention five amazing ancient libraries of the world.

3.2.1 The Library of Alexandria

The great library of Alexandria is the most famous library in the world, where scholars

around the globe came for knowledge and shared philosophies. “The library was located

within the grounds of the Royal Palace in Alexandria, a port city in northern Egypt and

was built around 295 BCE by Ptolemy I. The library was a complex with shrines

dedicated to each of the nine muses, lecture areas, observatories, a zoo and living

quarters. It was thought to house the works of great scholars and writers

including Homer, Plato, and Socrates. The library’s destruction is most commonly

thought to have happened in 48 BCE when Julius Caesar occupied Alexandria.

When Caesar tried to leave the port town, Egyptian ships trapped him. Caesar ordered his

men to set fire to the ships, however, the fire got out of hand and destroyed many

buildings including the library.” (Koekoe, 2015).

3.2.2. The Library of Ashurbanipal

The Royal Library of Ashurbanipal is founded and entitled after the king Ashurbanipal.

He was the king of Neo-Assyrian empire 630 (B.C). He was an ardent accumulator of

texts and tablets. “British Museum archeologists discovered more than 30,000 cuneiform

tablets and fragments at his capital, Nineveh (modern Kuyunjik). Alongside historical

inscriptions, letters, administrative and legal texts, thousands of divinatory, magical,

medical, literary and lexical texts were found. This treasure-house of learning has held

unparalleled importance to the modern study of the ancient near the east ever since the

first fragments were excavated in the 1850s.” (British Museum, No date).

3.2.3. The Library of Pergamum (Pergamon)

The Library of Pergamum (also Pergamon) was an enormous ancient library that was

situated in the Greek city of Pergamon located on the shores of Anatolia or modern day

Turkey founded around 197-159 BCE by King Eumenes.“Parchment (chartapergamena)

was said to have been developed there after the copying of books was impeded by

59

http://www.ancient.eu/alexandria/

http://www.ancient.eu/egypt/

http://www.ancient.eu/Ptolemy_I/

http://www.ancient.eu/homer/

http://www.ancient.eu/plato/

http://www.ancient.eu/socrates/

http://www.ancient.eu/Julius_Caesar/




Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries Ptolemy Philadelphus’ by banning the export of papyrus from Egypt. Parchment proved

to be more durable than papyrus and so marks a significant development in the history of

technical advances in the dissemination of knowledge. The library was bequeathed with

the whole of the kingdom of Pergamum to the Roman people in 133 BC, and Plutarch

records an allegation that Mark Antony gave its 200,000 volumes to Cleopatra VII, to

become part of the Alexandrian library.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2016)

3.2.4. The Library of Constantinople

Around 357 CE Constantius II (son of Constantius I) the Emperor of Byzantine (now

Istanbul) had created the Imperial Library of Constantinople. The Library may have held

one hundred thousand (100,000) volumes one of the largest collections of that period.

The Emperor was worried about the deteriorating condition of the texts which were

written on papyrus scrolls (Papyrus scrolls were made from a grassy plant) so that many

Judaeo-Christian scriptures could be copied from papyrus to parchment or vellum. “For

almost a millennium, the Imperial Library (established during the reign of Constantius II,

which lasted between 337 to 361 CE) kept the Greek and Roman literary tradition alive

and accessible. Fire, unfortunately, proved its undoing on two different occasions. One

incident in 473 destroyed around 120,000 texts and the Fourth Crusade in 1204

eventually finished the job.” (Online College, 2016)

3.2.5. The Celsus Library

The Celsus Library located in Ephesus (modern day Turkey) was built in 110 CE by

Gaius Julius Aquila to memorialize his father Tiberius Julius Celsus Polemaeanus

(governor of the province of Asia, who had been from 105 to 107 CE). The monumental

tomb was beneath the ground floor and there was a statue of Athena (Goddess of

Wisdom). “The interior of the library measured 16.72m by 10.92m and was paved with

decorated marble. The walls were lined with niches for the storage of scrolls. Running

around the interior wall at second storey level, was a railed balcony giving access to

higher level niches. In order to reduce humidity and create a more stable interior

temperature (which would have damaged the precious texts within the library), empty

niches were constructed inside the walls. The interior also contained a large alcove which

60


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries contained a statue, probably of Celsus. In 262 CE the library was destroyed by fire during

a Gothic invasion. However, the façade survived and repairs were made to the library in

the 4th century CE and a fountain added in front.” (Cartwright, 2012)

.

3.2.6. Ancient Universities in India

India is a very rich country as compared to civilizations of the world. The Indus-Valley

civilization is a place of higher learning and a center of intelligence. The scholars of

Indian origin were themselves librarians known as memory libraries. Memorizing of

Ramayana and Mahabharata the two great epics proves this. There are many ancient

libraries in India which show our teaching and learning skills. In ancient India there are

many ancient libraries were discovered among the most prominent are the Taxila and

Nalanda Universities. Other ancient libraries of India are also discussed below.

3.2.6.1 Taxila

“Taxila lies in the northwest of Rawalpindi (Pakistan). It was the capital of the Buddhist

kingdom of Gandhara and a center of learning. It came under Persian rule and in 326 BC

was surrendered to Alexander the Great. Taxila is known from references in Indian and

Greco-Roman literary sources and from the accounts of two Chinese Buddhist pilgrims,

Faxian, and Xuanzang. According to the Indian epic Ramayana Bharata, the younger

brother of Rama was an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu. The city was named after

Bharata’s son Taksha, its first ruler. Takshashila was an early center of learning dating

back to at least the 5th century BCE. Takshashila is considered a place of religious and

historical sanctity by Hindus and Buddhists.” (Nickel, 2010)

.

3.2.6.2. Nalanda

“The Nalanda University, which by 450 A.D. became a renowned seat of learning, its

fame spread beyond the boundaries of India. Nalanda near Patna grew to be the foremost

Buddhist monastery and an educational center. Hiuen-Tsang and I-Tsing stayed and

studied here. Information on the Nalanda University Library is also found in the Tibetan

accounts, from which we understand that the library was situated in a special area known

by the poetical name the Dharmaganja, (Piety Mart) which comprised three huge

61


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries buildings, called the Ratnasagara, the Ratnodadhi, and the Ratnaranjaka of which the

Ratnasagara was a nine storied building and housed the collection of manuscripts and

rare sacred works like Prajnaparamita Sutra and other. The library at Nalanda had a rich

stock of manuscripts on philosophy and religion and contained texts related to grammar,

logic, literature, the Vedas, the Vedanta, and the Samkhya philosophy, the

Dharmasastras, the Puranas, Astronomy, Astrology, and Medicine. The University of

Nalanda and its library flourished down to the 12th century A.D. until Bakhtiyar Khalji

sacked it in 1197-1203 A.D. and set fire to the establishment of Nalanda.” (Bhatt, 1995)

3.2.6.3. Other Ancient Libraries in India

“Further centers include Odantapuri, in Bihar (circa 550-1040), Somapura, in Bangladesh

(from the Gupta period to the Muslim conquest), Jagaddala, in Bengal (from the Pala

Period to the Muslim Conquest), Nagarjunakonda, in Andhra Pradesh, Vikramasila, in

Bihar ( circa 800-1040), SharadaPeeth, in modern Kashmir, Valabhi, in Gujarat (from the

Martrak period to the Arab raids), Varanasi in the Uttar Pradesh (8th century to modern

times), Kanchipuram, in Tamil Nadu, Manyakheta, in Karnataka, Puspagiri, in Orissa and

Ratnagiri in Orissa. In Sri Lanka, Sunethradevi Pirivena, a center of Buddhist learning in

Sri Lanka, founded circa 1415 AD.” (AICTE, 2014)

3.3. TRANSFORMATION OF LIBRARIES FROM TRADITIONAL TO CLOUD

The ancient period suggests that libraries were used by Kings, Monarchs, Emperors,

Scholars, and Scientists and it was not for the ordinary people. It was a custom and a

symbol of pride for the wealthy people to have their own private libraries. Libraries have

been destroyed by wars, fires, and floods, but they have been restored and expanded an

obligatory and treasured repository of knowledge. In 1450, Johann Gutenberg was the

first European who invented movable type, Printing Press and started printing Gutenberg

Bible. The invention becomes a medium of mass communication which altered the

society. The printing revolution broke the barrier of learning which was only restricted to

an elite group of the society. It was for the first time that restricted information reached to

general people which gave rise to revolutions, freedom of expression and the building of

civilized society.

62


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries The traditional library is based on the collection of printed reading material. The

management of traditional library is not able to provide pinpointed services to their users

and confined within physical boundary. In the decade of 1980s, computer was introduced

in the library, which was helpful in house-keeping operations i.e. acquisition, cataloging,

circulation, serial control, documentation, and information retrieval, which is termed as

semi-automation of all library functions. In the 1990s, most of the libraries started using

computerized acquisition, circulation, CAS, SDI, OPAC services and machine readable

catalog called as automated libraries. But the holdings are same as that of a traditional

library. When automated libraries started procuring or converting physical texts in

electronic format and give access through network they were known as electronic

libraries. Mostly of the electronic media is used for storage, retrieval and delivery of

information. The electronic library has changed its holdings from print to electronic form.

Libraries with both physical and digital collections are referred to as hybrid libraries.

Digital Library is a later stage of the electronic library. In a Digital Library, high-speed

optical fiber cables are used for LAN and the access is over a WAN that provides a wide

range of the Internet-based services i.e. audio and video conferencing, etc. A majority of

the holdings in a digital library is in the computer-readable form and also acts as a point

of access to other on-line resources. In the past few decades, there was a drastic

improvement in ICT. The practices and processes of almost all endeavors got affected.

The libraries are progressed tremendously in this age of ICT exponentially. Due to rapid

growth in data on the Internet where the storage capacity is under the scanner, a new

technology called Cloud Computing came to surface. This technology is basically a

subscription based service and gives a solution to all Information Technology related

problems. The models of cloud computing help the library to secure its data and gives

complete access whenever needed. Phase-wise developments of libraries are explained

below in detail:

Traditional Library

Automated Library

Electronic Library

Hybrid Library

Digital Library

63


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries Virtual Library

Cloud Library

3.3.1. Traditional Library

In earlier times there wasn’t a concept of library and books existed in record rooms,

storehouse, and archives legal, historical, and religious works preserved in wood,

papyrus, copper plates, parchment, clay tablets, and animal hides, kept in scrolls. After

the revolution of the printing press, libraries emerged in the middle of the 20th century.

The biggest disadvantage of traditional library is the stored books degrade over a period

of time and there was always the fear of theft and book mishandling. In the absence of

computer, traditional libraries were handled manually; required lot of man power and

time to carry different activities. Development of book collection was done through

‘Books in Print’, a catalog of suppliers, suggested by teachers, users, and library

committee. Organization of information was a tedious job, a librarian was supposed to

index the document properly so as to facilitate its users to locate. Negligence of this task

will not only waste the time of the user and the location of the book will not be identified.

Most of the libraries divided their collection of the bases of subject headings. In many

libraries books were cataloged according to the title, author, and subject based. For the

location of books, a number of tools were utilized such as library catalog, Bay Guides,

Bibliographies. For classification of books various classification systems were available.

It was a subject experts job or a person who knew classification system well. The most

important activity of a library is lending books and for that Newark and Browne systems

were in practice. Preparing bibliographies for the most time-consuming job for library

professionals it required constant up-gradation and efficiency to manage it. Up-keeping

of microfilms and microfiche in traditional set-up was quite an expensive job and

required separate room and a professional person to handle.

3.3.2. Automated Library

Library Automation denotes to the automation of library systems such as Acquisition,

Circulation, Serial Control, and OPAC which was otherwise handled manually. It also

meant a technology that minimizes human intervention in the handling of the processes

64


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries or systems. This job is done with the help of computer applications and software. The

automation of the library helps to provide services efficiently, accurately, adequately, and

economically. Library automation became mandatory due to growing information and

shrinking space. With automation, the library can deliver information quickly such as

bibliographic records of material, repetition of the technical processes, access to

information without delay, multiple searches, barcode printing, CAS and SDI services,

and Inter-Library Loan. It has a capacity of handling large data and information and does

not get obsolete, resource sharing and networking of libraries help to share data online,

the delivery of information and retrieval becomes easy, and geographical barriers can be

overcome with the help of automation of libraries

3.3.3. Electronic Library

The “Electronic Library” synonymously refers as “Digital Library”, and “Virtual

Library”. When printed material is converted into an electronic format it is called as an

electronic resource and when it get accessed through a library it is known as electronic

library. The electronic library is accessed through network, CD-ROMs, magnetic discs,

and through Internet. The storing and copying of information is done through

downloading or through master file. The rising use of information including electronic

media forced libraries to go for transformation and to convert their holdings into

electronic format. Through network and links, libraries can get connected with the

electronic collections of other libraries. Resource sharing becomes easy and information

can be handed over to its users without any delay. The acquisition, preservation,

organization and access to information in electronic format are permanent and long

lasting. The electronic library helps reducing cost and unnecessary purchase of study

material.

3.3.4. Hybrid Library

Libraries with both physical and digital collections are called as hybrid libraries. It

mirrors the transitional state of library, which neither is fully printed nor fully digitally

converted. It provides services in a mixed-mode more particularly in a co-ordinated way

so that with the help of electronic and paper an enforced service can be provided to the

65


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries end user. Most of the libraries of the world fall under the category of hybrid library.

Copyright laws do not allow libraries to digitalize their entire collection and to subscribe

to online resources (books and journals) is very expensive. Hence, most of the libraries

adopted the hybrid pattern rather emphasizing on the electronic library, although the

advantage of electronic library is far superior to the hybrid library.

3.3.5. Digital Library

A digital library is a library in which information is stored in digital format and

accessible through computer locally or remotely. “Digital libraries are organizations that

provide the resources, including specialized staff, to select, structure, offer intellectual

access to, interpret, distribute, preserve the integrity of, and ensure the persistence over

time of collections of digital works so that they are readily and economically available for

use by a defined community or set of communities" (Digital Library Federation, 2011).

The functions and advantages of digital library includes access to information of any size

to users without boundaries, supports multimedia along with text, accessibility through

the Internet or Intranet, hypertext links for quick access, advanced searched, merge with

other digital libraries, and universal retrieval, 24 x 7 availability, multiple access, and

longtime preservations.

3.3.6. Virtual Library

As the word virtual stands for something that exists only at the back of your mind and not

physical. The notion of virtual library is that a person who has access to the Internet, can

access the resources of any library without being physically present. “Virtual library is a

collection of resources (e.g. indexes, journals, and reference material) or online reference

services available over the Internet. Virtual does not necessarily mean appearance or

simulation, but rather refers to activities that instead of demanding a physical presence

and a relationship with objects can be executed at a distance by means of a monitor and a

keyboard.” (Putnik & Cunha, 2008) There are many misconceptions about virtual library

some consider Internet and web pages as a virtual library. However, there are some basic

differences. The electronic library contains reading material that has been converted

66


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries electronically while digital library stores, manages and disseminate via networks. On the

contrary, Virtual Library holds both digital and electronic libraries existing ‘Virtually’.

3.3.7. Cloud Library

After the developments in ICT, libraries started procuring huge information technology

infrastructure to automate their system. At a later stage, due to increasing in online

information, maximum utilization of the Internet, user’s inclination shifted more towards

online teaching and learning that gave rise to electronic and digital libraries and this

compels the institutions to buy expensive servers, hardware, and software. The increase

in data storage and retrieval issues became prominent. To solve these issues cloud

computing emerged as a solution. Cloud computing also called as on-demand computing,

is highly scalable and expandable in nature. This technology is basically a subscription

based service and works through the Internet. Cloud service providers offer services such

as information technology infrastructure, hardware, software, application, storage,

communication, and if any collaboration is required.

3.4. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT)

‘Information technology’ is two separate words when combined together mean ‘the use

of technology in communication of information’. “ICT is often use as an extended term

for information technology (IT) but is usually a more general term that stresses the role of

unified communication (forms of communications that are exchanged via a network) and

the integration of telecommunications (telephone lines and wireless signals), computers,

middleware as well as necessary software, storage and audio-visual systems, which

enable users to create, access, store, transmit and manipulate information. In other words,

ICT consists of IT as well as telecommunication, broadcast media, all types of audio and

video processing and transmission and network based control and monitoring functions.”

(Wikipedia, Information and communications technology, 2016)

3.4.1. Definition

(Hamelink, 1997), defines “Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) as

encompassing all those technologies that enable the handling of information and facilitate

67


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries different forms of communication between human beings and electronic system. They are

subdivided into five categories:

1. “Capturing Technologies: Includes, keyboards, mice, trackballs, touch screens,

voice recognition systems, bar code readers, image scanners and palm-size

camcorders.

2. Storage Technologies: Includes, magnetic tapes, floppy disks, hard disks, RAM

disks, optical disks (such as CD-ROMs), erasable disks and smart cards (credit-

card sized cards with memory.

3. Processing Technologies: Includes, creating software for the performance of

digital Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).

4. Communication Technologies: Includes, integrated services digital networks,

digital cellular networks, local area networks (LANs), wide area networks

(WANs, such as the Internet), electronic bulletin boards, modems, transmission

media such as fiber optics, cellular phones and fax machines, and digital

transmission technologies for mobile space communications (the new Low Earth

Orbit satellite voice and data services).

5. Digital Technologies: includes, display screens for computers, digital television

sets with automatic picture adjustment, set-top boxes for video-on-demand,

printers, digital video discs (which might replace CD-ROM drives and audio CD

players), voice synthesizers and virtual reality helmets.”

From the above definition, we can assert that ICT has transformed library and

information centers as a global hub of information communication where geographical

barrier does not exist and people of the world can acquire, process, transmit, and

disseminate information without any delay.

3.4.2. Impact of ICT over Traditional Library

1. Entire housekeeping operations acquisition, circulation, serial control, OPAC,

stock verification, and cataloguing is replaced due to Library Automation

Software.

2. Manual and depth classification takes a lot of time whereas computerized

classification can help professional to store the same classification number and

68


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries

repetitive classification can be avoided. Online classification schemes are Web

Dewey (http://dewey.org), and Classify of OCLC (http://classify.oclc.org).

3. The Desktop Publishing systems (MS-Office, Open Office) are easier than

traditional typewriters where there are no means of back-up and storage facility.

4. Manual searching of catalog is very difficult and cumbersome job whereas this

has been replaced by web OPAC (Online Public Access Catalogue). Computer

based searching is very easy and within a matter of few seconds, users can get the

information about resources and location.

5. Reference service earlier has been replaced by Virtual Reference Desk (VRD),

Portals, Subject Gateways, and Online Databases.

6. Manual CAS and SDI services replaced by electronic publication and the Internet

resources.

7. Earlier a user must have to visit a library to get books or journals now due to the

emergence of electronic and digital library a user can browse the library sitting at

home.

8. Libraries use to close and open on time but the access to information through IT

based libraries is anytime and anywhere.

9. A user is supposed to return a book in traditional libraries whereas e-books can be

saved in computers.

10. Once the information is fed in the computer it can be accessed end number of

times whereas in traditional library everything has to be maintained manually and

repetitive handling further deteriorates the conditions.

11. Users face the problem of non-availability of books or sometimes have to wait for

months to get a desired book. Whereas, if the book is available in electronic

format it can be read by end number of users.

12. It was not possible earlier to deliver book oversea, but through the Internet and

networking of libraries a user sitting anywhere in the world can read books and

other resources.

13. In the traditional handling of libraries a bibliography of books cannot be

exchanged due to standardization in bibliographic control. Now, this can be done

electronically.

69


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries 3.4.3. Emerging Technologies

Advancement in ICT enabled libraries to transmit information at the shortest possible

time. The classroom becomes a virtual classroom and e-education has been given

preference over conventional mode of education. Similar is the case of Virtual

Universities and Virtual Libraries where online utilization of information will matter

rather than physical presence. Online admission, examination, interviews, government

notifications, circular, policies are almost on the verge of complete sweep over traditional

methods. Sharing of resources among libraries electronically compel libraries to create a

network of libraries. It combines the efforts and resources of libraries into one unified

force where unnecessary acquisition of resources can be avoided. In today’s time, the

more accepted system of resource sharing is Library Consortia. It enables libraries to

meet the escalating cost of printed journals and purchase of online resources. The desktop

is replaced by laptops and PDAs (Personal Digital Assistance). No wonder libraries will

be called as wireless libraries with portable networks. Data Warehousing and Data

Mining are getting an edge over Virtual Data Warehouses. There is a significant

paradigm shift from Radio Frequency to Optical Frequencies due to the availability of

higher bandwidths. Wireless technology such as ‘mobile communication’ is outdating

‘landline phones’. Wireless Online Networking (WLANs) and Bluetooth are on the

sprawl and their speed is constantly upgrading which is more feasible than wired

network. LAN (local area network) and WAN (wide area network) are two constituents

for data communication network. LAN is utilizing to connecting computers at campus

level and WAN is a computer network that extends over a large geographical distance.

But their rate of transfer of data is low. VSATs (Visual Small Aperture Terminal) can

transfer the data at a higher rate but the only difficulty is insufficient satellite

transponders. The above innovations in ICT have taken place in the last decade. It is

expected this advancement will be merged in next decade.

3.5. APPLICATION OF ICT IN LIBRARIES

ICT has transformed the way of services being offered to users globally. It has changed

the process of collection, storage, dissemination and access of information. Traditional

services are replaced and extended in a more renovated and refurbished manner under

70


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries ICT. Technological advancements such as growth in information over the Internet, search

engines, reduction in computer cost, high speed of computer processors, high-bandwidth,

networking and an increase in the number of electronic publications assisting libraries to

provide a variety of information sources and services to users. User expectation also

changed due to ICT. They want easy access and quick response to their queries. In ICT

scenario, libraries are moving at a dynamic pace. There is an exemplary shift from print

media to electronic media, possession of documents to access to digital information, and

from the existence of the specific library to electronic/ digital/ hybrid/ virtual/cloud

libraries. Responsibilities of libraries are growing in terms of giving traditional and

electronic services to users where the hybrid model of library is followed.It is mandatory

on library professionals to be equipped extending services in ICT environment. Library

professional should train themselves in the handling of library automation software; e-

mails sending and receiving, online search and retrieval of information; multimedia

handling; making online blogs, portals; templates, web pages in HTML and XML;

uploading of information on the Internet creating digital libraries, training of staff for

extending information services; encouraging networking and resource sharing at local

level; listing of national and international journals which are freely available on the

Internet and creating subject gateways to name a few.

3.5.1. e-Collection

Collection development is one of the primary requirements of a library. On the Internet,

large numbers of electronic documents are available freely that include books, journals,

encyclopedias and reports. Through library portal and content management systems

libraries can link those documents for the benefit of users instead of downloading and

giving access to their websites. These collections are very useful and handy for the users.

They can download and have access to these resources offline on their personal desktops.

Electronic collection saves the space and maintenance of books. Over a period of time,

pages of books get brittle and it becomes difficult to handle and circulate. Whereas

electronic documents can be used end number of times and multiple copies can be made.

Users can access to electronic collection remotely, anytime and anywhere with the access

to the Internet. Library professionals must inculcate a habit of locating such websites

71


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries where the electronic collection can be developed and passed on to users. It will also

benefit in reducing the cost of purchasing documents.

3.5.2. Procurement of Resources

The job of procurement of resources becomes fast, easy, saves time and energy due to the

Internet. Apart, from documents libraries are also procuring CD-ROMs, multimedia

tutorials and kits. The computer has made the task so easy before procurement of

resources that it can check whether the document exists in the library, also cost

verification and other details can be re-examined. Librarians can visit the websites of the

publisher and can see books and journals. Placement of order and payment can be done

online. Reminders and further formalities can be done e-mails.

3.5.3. Standardization in Technical Practices

Classification and cataloging is a technical job and is done by a professionally trained

person. Today online classification system is available. A library can subscribe online

classification system since Dewey Decimal is available online and OCLC is also offering

this service. There are other national libraries for example: Library of Congress and

British Library, who give ready-made classification number. Even their bibliographic

details can be copied through Z39.5 copy cataloging facility. There are many cataloging

standards made by different countries like MARC, UNIMARC, USMARC, CANMARK,

etc. With the help of MARC (machine-readable catalog) tags, the bibliographic

information of a book can be easily transferred through the Internet by library automation

software.

.

3.5.4. Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC)

The automation of library helps in sharing the OPAC. It shows the bibliographic details

of holdings of a library. A library can put the OPAC on Internet or Intranet. The web

OPAC enables users to see the availability of book existence in a particular library. They

can reserve the book except the physical delivery which is impossible.

72


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries 3.5.5. Library Networking and Resource Sharing

There are various networks available at national and international level. At national level

INFLIBNET supports and imparts training regarding IT related problems to universities

and colleges in India. There are other networks such as NICNET (National Informatics

Centers Network), ERNET (Education and Research Network), CALIBNET (Calcutta

Library Network), DELNET (Developing Library Network) also available. There are also

other networks available which work at state, countrywide and sectorial level. The

ultimate objective of these networks is to interconnect information resources which will

enable users to access information regardless of location, format and medium.

Additionally, it will be useful for training, creating standards and databases, a union list

of catalog, reference service, retrospective conversion and setting up communication

facilities.

3.5.6. Library Consortia

A consortium is a relationship of two or more partners, individuals or institutions with the

aim of sharing in a common or pooling their resources for attaining a similar objective. In

similar way library consortia is a sharing of resources, collaborative activities, services

and sharing of expertise. Library consortia also mean more users and lesser cost.

Consortia based subscription to electronic resources allows access to wider electronic

resources at lower and shared cost. The other benefits are the optimum utilization of

funds, shared digital library, and shared CAS and SDI services. Some of the examples in

India are INDEST consortium for IITs, CSIR consortium for all CSIR laboratories and

UGC’s INFONET consortium by INFLIBNET. This allows a unified network of

information accessible to institutions of higher learning. It helps tremendously in

teaching, learning and especially for research purpose.

3.5.7. ICT-Based User Education and Services

The effectiveness of ICT is very useful in imparting education and has a deeper effect on

student’s performance. New gadgets and technologies always fascinate the young

generation and they readily accept the change. Their adaptive nature to technology raises

many concerns to libraries. They require access to the latest updated information and

73


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries access to ICT facilities at the fullest to utilize maximum for their studies. The numerous

benefits that ICT are: it provides speedy access to information, remote access, anytime

access, unlimited access to a wide range of information source through network, web

access to OPAC and allows keeping a copy of electronic documents. In distance

education, ICT proved an ultimate medium of instruction and study to users. Through

website, course contents and syllabus can be facilitated to users. Through satellite

channel and video conferencing learning has become hassle free.

3.5.8. Electronic Resources

There are various types of electronic resources available such as e-books, e-journals,

electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs), patents, newspapers, photographs, motion

pictures, music. The advantages of electronic resources are: it saves time; it’s

convenient, easy searching facilities, hyperlinking and sharing. It is convenient to store,

maintain and cost effective. At the same there are various disadvantages to human, social

and technological discomforts. Electronic resources are not comfortable reading on

screen, poor Internet speed, outdated configuration of computer, deficiency in technical

knowledge and expertise to handle electronic resources and disappearance of website or

relocation creates lots of problems to users. A single search of the web harvests

thousands of results and researcher need to filter what is required for him. This consumes

a lot of time, although deep web search engines and federated search are handy but not

best effective.

3.5.8.1. E-Books

A book in the digital form displayed on a computer screen is called an e-book (electronic

book). With the help of an e-book readers like ‘Kindle,’ e-books can be read. There are

other technologies like electronic paper and talking books (audio) also available for

readers. The advantages include unlimited storage, unlimited access, a quick search of

text, bookmarking, online availability, multiple copies of the same book, no shipping and

postal charges and no mutilation and lost. In a library’s point of view the advantages are

cost saving in terms of circulation, binding, shelving, preparation of a list of book

defaulters and collection of charges. Printing of books required pages and that is acquired

74


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries through the pulp of tree a natural disaster on the contrary e-books are eco-friendly and

saves environment. Publication of printed book has to go through several processes that

involve cost and energy whereas e-books can be published without the involvement of

any third party and can be uploaded using different free web services and software.

3.5.8.2. E-Journals

The usage of an electronic journal is far superior to physical journals. Subscription and

order placement of physical is a hectic job. A library supposed to keep track of delivery

of journals issues and becomes a routine work for a library professional to constantly

keep registering of received issues and to raise complain about missed and delayed

issues. The circulation of physical journals, management and converting into bound

volumes is a tiring job. Moreover, searching of an article on a particular topic, need to

search multiple journals physically, is a very tough work. On the contrary, e-journals are

easy to place order, no space requirements, no tension of pages becoming brittle, theft or

loss of journals, online access to back issues, full-text search according to subject-wise

author-wise, title-wise, topic-wise, and publication-wise and downloading of end number

of articles. There are many aggregators and database providers who supply hundreds of

journal online such as Elsevier Science, Science Direct, Wiley Interscience, Emerald,

EBSCOHOST, and J-Gate to name a few.

3.5.8.3. Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETD)

Electronic conversion of theses and dissertations brought transparency in research work

and became a helpful tool for curbing plagiarism. They have been considered as an

important source of information by the UGC and under the supervision of INFLIBNET

‘Shodhganga,’ a national portal for ongoing research has been evolved using DSpace.

The UGC Notification (Minimum Standards & Procedure for Award of M Phil. / Ph.D.

Degree, Regulation, 2009) dated 1st June 2009 mandates submission of electronic

version of theses and dissertations by the researchers in universities with an aim to

facilitate open access to Indian theses and dissertations to the academic community

world-wide. It will not only ensure easy access and archiving of Indian doctoral theses

but will also help in raising the standard and quality of research.” (INFLIBNET, 2015) A

75


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries number of universities and institutions initiated this program and created their own ETDs.

The other ETD portals are Vidyanidhi (Access to full-text theses and dissertations of

Ph.D. / M Phil awardees of Indian universities) and ShodhGangotri (Access to full-text

approved research proposals of Ph.D. /M Phil researchers of Indian universities).

3.5.8.4. Patents

“A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or

assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an

invention. An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem and is a product

or a process. Patents are a form of intellectual property.” (Wikipedia, Patent, 2016)

“Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is statutory rights once granted allows the creator(s)

or owner(s) of the intellectual property to exclude others from exploiting the same

commercially for a given period of time.” (GIAN, 2011) The patent authorities and

companies nowadays are disclosing full-text patent record online for public access.

3.5.8.5. Open e-Course Resources

Teaching and learning through electronic resources is gaining grounds as many learners

are unable to attend colleges due to many unavoidable circumstances. Open learning

course material got recognition from UNESCO and at government level also it has been

initiated. The main objective is to facilitate this material publicly with the copy-left

permission for free use and further distribution. Some of them are MIT (Massachusetts

Institute of Technology), OSCAR (Open Source Courseware Animations Repository),

Shakshat, NROER (National Repository of Open Educational Resources), Social

Mention, etc. Other open e-course resources are:

Open Tapestry www.oerrecommender.org

Creative Commons http://search.creativecommons.org Free learning resources for teachers www.jorum.ac.uk/

The Open Education Consortium www.ocwconsortium.org

OER Commons www.oercommons.org 10,000 free books – www.bookboon.com

College Open Textbooks – www.collegeopentextbooks.org

76


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries 3.5.8.6. Subject Gateways

The Internet has achieved the reputation of best information located and provider because

it offers a mammoth and gigantic volume of information. The information is available in

a scattered way and for the proper organization of information subject, gateways are

formed which give links to information resources predominantly accessible via the

Internet. It is a job of a subject expert and generally libraries through their websites

creates and give access to subject gateways. Some of the examples of subject gateways

are as follows:

Aerospace & Defense Studies http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/

Agriculture, Forestry, Environment, Food, Science, Horticulture

http://www.agrigate.edu.au/

Arts & Humanities http://ahds.ac.uk/

Art History http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHLinks.html

Philosophy and Culture http://www.becal.net/

Biological Sciences http://biogate.lub.lu.se/

Chemistry http://www.chemdex.org/

Education http://edweb.gsn.org/

Engineering http://www.eevl.ac.uk/

3.5.9. Open Access

Open Access means the access to information free of cost. Anybody can read, access, and

utilize without any restrictions. There are thousands of e-books and e-journals which are

freely available and their purpose is to spread knowledge without any boundaries and

barriers. The open access initiative believes in the philosophy to attain knowledge as

birthright. The examples of open access are Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

which are freely available at the web address (http://www.doaj.org) where more than

eleven thousand (11,000) journals consisting of twenty-two (22) lakh articles are

accessible openly in various subjects and fields by one hundred and thirty-six (136)

countries of the world. Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) also gives full-text

access to more than four thousand (4000) academic peer-reviewed books from one

hundred and fifty-one (151) publishers. The Open Access Journals Search Engine

77


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries (OAJSE) maintained by Dr. Badan Barman, compiled a list of (4775) journals taken from

DOAJ. The other open access books and journals providers are Research Papers in

Economics (RePEc) and JournalSeek.

3.5.10. Open Access Archives

When there are open access e-books and e-journals it was necessary to have open access

archives. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has devised the repository for

archival of electronic contents. It is called as DSpace, which is freely available software

to manage institutional contents online. Many libraries and universities are setting ‘Open

Access Archives’ which gives access to full-text e-journals. “An open archive is

an institutional repository or some other web-accessible digital archive that is compliant

with the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting(OAI-PMH).”

(Wikipedia, Open archive, 2015)

3.5.11. Information Services

Today almost all information services can be provided through the Internet. It is a faster

and easier way to handle electronic sources. For up-gradation libraries don’t need to wait

for a longer period of time. With the help of the Internet, many offline and online services

can be provided. It answers short range and long range questions. Some of the Internet

sources which are freely available are encyclopedias, dictionaries, bibliographies,

abstracts and indexes. There are many Internet-based information services that can be

accessed by the users. The noticeable services are Current Awareness Service (CAS),

Selective Dissemination of Information (SDI) and Virtual Reference Service (VRS).

3.5.11.1. Current Awareness Service (CAS)

ICT has changed the face of providing information services in today’s time. Some new

method of CAS is RSS feed and e-alerts. It is the method of relating web contents that are

available for feeding on an online vendor to a web user. “The Internet has enabled a lot of

innovations in contents, methods of production and distribution of current awareness

products. Tools such as Listserv, Weblog, Webzines, and e-newsletters are common.

Listserv gives latest information, hot topics, ideas and opinions, a chance to discuss

78

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_repository

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_archive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Archives_Initiative_Protocol_for_Metadata_Harvesting


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries issues, a source of advice and assistance. Weblogs literally log the web. They review,

select and package the latest relevant information, in a subject area. Some examples of

web-based current awareness service are The NSDL Scout Report for Math, Engineering,

and Technology (http://scout.wisc.edu/Reports/NSDL/MET/Current/) and Free Pint

(www.freepint.com) are examples of web-based current awareness services (Chauhan,

2004).”

3.5.11.2. Selective Dissemination of Information (SDI)

The SDI services are a kind of services where new information is been provided to

potential users on the basis of their interest and profile. “A selective dissemination of

information (SDI) system attempts to facilitate users' information retrieval and

information filtering needs. With the rise of the internet as an information source, the

volume of information available ranging from all interests has exploded, and difficulties

in surveying, querying, and filtering information pertaining to individuals' interests

increase with this explosion. The goal of an SDI system is to deliver new information

arriving at an SDI-aware information provider to users who express their interests via

user profiles. Mechanisms used to implement such SDI systems vary; one such option is

a persistent query mechanism. Users create and pose queries to an SDI system; queries

remain resident in the system which works to somehow match documents and users.

Successful matches are delivered from the SDI system back to users.” (O'Neil, 2001)

3.5.11.3. Virtual Reference Service

The institution provides reference service in a fix allotted time in a library. It is very

effective reference service that has been provided to users. “According to guidelines

provided by the Reference and Users Services Association (RUSA), virtual reference is a

reference service, such as chat, video conferencing, co-browsing, instant messaging (IM),

voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) or email, conducted electronically through computers

or the Internet. Most VRS are in real time and use synchronous communication.

Although reference services can be conducted using telephone, fax or mail, those are not

virtual reference.” (Cheng, 2008)

79


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries 3.5.11.4. Bibliographic Services

The foremost requirement of a user and researcher is to see the bibliography of books,

know the availability of subject material of his study. Preparing bibliography manually

leads many mistakes and duplication. Whereas the computer based bibliographies are

permanent, easy to maintain and circulate to users. Networking of libraries is also useful

for bibliographic control and making union list of catalog and that is shared between the

participating libraries. Online databases providers also have this facility and various kinds

of searches are extended by default to their users. Where the filtering of databases is

possible based on different kind of searches such as keywords, subject, author, title,

publisher, and others.

3.6. APPLICATION OF THE INTERNET IN LIBRARIES

One of the most significant accomplishments in the ICT is the introduction of radical

communication network i.e. the Internet. The Internet is called by different names such as

global network, a network of networks, and ARPANet. The Internet is originated by

Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and was aptly called as ARPANet. Today

the Internet is connecting millions of computers across the globe and information is

shared through World Wide Web (www) with incredible speed universally. The Internet

has become one of the mandatory tools for library today. Apart from various other

services mentioned above the following are the services that can be offered exclusively

through the Internet to library users.

1. E-Mail: Message can be sent and receive electronically.

2. File Transfer Protocol: Files transfer between computers on the Internet.

3. Mailing Group: Group e-mailing is possible.

4. Remote Login: Through remote login software, can take the control of a remote

computer.

5. Online Links: Through which a subject can be discussed at length.

6. Wide Area Information System: Search index databases remotely.

7. World Wide Web: The Internet tool gives access to information through

hypertext technique.

80


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries

8. Chat Rooms: Through the Internet can talk to individuals connected to a

particular chat room.

SUMMARY

This chapter reveals that the libraries exist since time immemorial. The journey of

libraries from ancient to modern day witnessed many ups and downs. It is in the age of

ICT that libraries are progressing leaps and bounds. The treasured and the most cost-

effective source of information being the library system and its modernization assume

considerable importance. Therefore, it is necessary for library professionals and

authorities of institutions to give prior attention and importance to maximum utilization

of ICT. There has to be a separate allocation of budget for procurement of more and more

electronic resources. Librarians should secure and equip themselves as far as utilization

of IT is concerned because the traditional way of information handling methods have

become ineffective and obsolete in providing information services to users. The only

solution to this problem is the introduction of IT in libraries and for that various

provisions have to be made. ICTs have enriched multiplicity and accessibility to library

collection and services to break barriers of location and time. It is mandatory today to

reconstruct, reevaluate, the objectives of library and functions of the information

professionals. Librarians have to be more advanced in IT to cope up with the changing

scenario.

.

****************************

81


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries REFERENCES

AICTE. (2014). Ancient Universities of India. Retrieved January 6, 2016, from All India Council for Technical Education: http://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/ancient.pdf

Bhatt, R. K. (1995). History and Development of Libraries in India. New Delhi: Mittal Publications.

British Museum. (No date). The Library of Ashurbanipal. Retrieved January 3, 2016, from British Museum: http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/research_projects/all_current_projects/ashurbanipal_library_phase_1.aspx

Cartwright, M. (2012, June 20). Celsus Library. Retrieved January 6, 2016, from Ancient History Encyclopedia: http://www.ancient.eu/Celsus_Library/

Chauhan, B. (2004). ICT Enabled Library and Information Services. Winter School on ICT Enabled Library & Information Services, 1-10.

Cheng, Y. L. (2008). Virtual Reference Services. Bulletin of the American Soceity for Information Science and Technology, 34(2), 6-7.

Digital Library Federation. (2011, January 11). A working definition of digital library [1998]. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from Digital Library Federation: https://old.diglib.org/about/dldefinition.htm

Encyclopedia Britannica. (2016). Library. Retrieved January 1, 2016, from Encyclopedia Britannica Library: http://www.britannica.com/topic/library

GIAN. (2011). Frequently Asked Questions on Patent. Retrieved January 29, 2016, from Grassroots Innovations Augmentation Network, North: http://www.gian.org/north/files/FAQ.pdf

Hamelink, C. J. (1997). New Information and Communication Technologies, Social Development and Cultural Change. Switzerland: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

INFLIBNET. (2015). Shodhganga a reservoir of Indian Theses. Retrieved Jauary 20, 2016, from Shodagands, INFLIBNET: http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/

Koekoe, J. (2015, June 26). The Great Library of Alexandria. Retrieved January 2, 2016, from Ancient History: http://etc.ancient.eu/2015/06/26/5-amazing-libraries-in-ancient-history/

82


Chapter 3: Transformation of Academic & Research Libraries Nickel. (2010, March 15). Ancient Indian Libraries. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from

Nickel-Ancient Indian Libraries: http://nickel-ancientindianlibraries.blogspot.in/

O'Neil, E. K. (2001, May). Selective Dissemination of Information in the Dynamic Web Environment. A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia. United States of America, Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.

Online College. (2016). 11 Most Impressive Libraries from the Ancient World. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from Online College: http://www.onlinecollege.org/2011/05/30/11-most-impressive-libraries-from-the-ancient-world/

Putnik, G., & Cunha, M. (2008). Encyclopedia of Networked and Virtual Organizations. United States of America: Information Science Reference.

Wikipedia. (2015, Janaury 8). Open archive. Retrieved February 12, 2016, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_archive

Wikipedia. (2016, April 28). Information and communications technology. Retrieved January 15, 2016, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_and_communications_technology

Wikipedia. (2016, April 26). Patent. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

83

CHAPTER IV

OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE: GENESIS, TECHNOLOGY AND

LIBRARY INFORMATION SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE


4.1 Introduction 84

4.2 Meaning, Definition and Characteristics Of OSS 84

4.3 Genesis , Development and Historical Background Of OSS 89

4.4 Free Software Versus Open Source Software 97

4.5 Open Source Software and Intellectual Property 98

4.6 Free / Open Source Software Licenses 101

4.7 Software and its Types 106

4.8 OSS Perspective in Library Information Science 108

Summary 114

References 115

CHAPTER IV OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE : GENESIS, TECHNOLOGY AND

LIBRARY INFORMATION SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

4.1. INTRODUCTION

Open source has progressed to its present state as a result of many technological

breakthroughs in the field of digital communication. It has grabbed the attention of

computer industries due to its successful products like GNU/Linux and Apache which

appeared as leaders in their respective application area. After the advancement of the

Internet, open source grew exponentially that allows thousands of programmers around

the globe to collaborate collectively to design the finest software with freely available

source code. It has become a sustainable alternative to commercial software. Thus, this

chapter describes the genesis and development of source software technology, historical

background, intellectual property and licenses, software types and LIS perspective of

open source.

4.2. MEANING, DEFINITION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE

Open Source Software means, software which is freely available to anybody and of

which source code (use to create a program) is free to view, use, modify and redistribute

without any discrimination. It’s a collaborative effort where programmers can make

changes, improve the source code and share between peers, allow further modifications

and incorporate changes within the community. Examples of some popular OSS are

Linux, Mozilla Firefox, Liber Office and Apache.

Richard M. Stallman established the Free Software Foundation in 1985. It’s a non-profit

organization solely dedicated to support and promote the free software movement,

freedom to study and modify the software. He defines the term, ‘Free Software’ means a

“software that respects users' freedom and community. It means that the users have the

freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, ‘free

software’ is a matter of liberty, not price” (Free Software Foundation, 2016).

84


Chapter 4: OSS Genesis, Technology and LIS Perspective

Mere development of software is not sufficient. It should be associated with certain

licensing terms and conditions. In his article (Breeding, 2002) explains that “Open Source

Software can be used freely without any license fee to its developers. It is released under

the standard license called General Public License (GPL) which specifies that the

software can be used, modified, and distributed free. Under GPL, the software can be

changed and enhanced but the new version must also be released under the same terms.

With OSS, the underlying source code must be made available along with the binary

version that actually runs on a computer. Releasing source code reveals all the details of

an application's inner workings. In the open source arena, this facilitates collaborative

development. In the commercial arena, releasing source code can be a fundamental

contradiction to basic business principle.”

Eric Raymond in his book explains the fact about OSS is not a new idea; its tradition

goes back to thirty years ago. “The term OSS refers to the software equipped with

licenses that provide existing and future users the right to use, inspect, modify, and

distribute (modified and unmodified) versions of software to others. It is not only the

concept of providing ‘free’ access to the software and it's a source code that makes OSS

the phenomenon but also the development culture.” (Raymond E. S., 1999)

4.2.1. Annotation of OSS Definition and Characteristics

The Open Source Initiative has given the definition and characteristic of OSS distribution

terms that must fulfill the criteria such as ‘free redistribution; source code; derived works;

integrity of the author’s source code; modification; redistribution, no discrimination

against any person or group; no discrimination against fields of endeavor; distribution of

license; license must not restrict other software and license must be technology neutral’

(Open Source Initiative, Open Source Software Definition and License Distribution

Terms, 1998). It is not a software license nor legal document but just a specification that

is permissible in software. Distribution terms are explained below in detail with proper

rationale and clarity.

85




giving away the software. As a component of an aggregate software distribution

containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a

royalty or other fees for such sale.”

Rationale: It means that you can make multiple copies of the software and either

sell or distribute it to anyone without any restrictions. Even, you don’t have to pay

any fees or royalty to its developer.

2. “Source Code: The program must include source code, and must allow

distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a

product is not distributed with source code. There must be a well-publicized

means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction

cost, downloading via the Internet without any charges. The source code must be

a preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately

obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a

preprocessor or translator are not allowed.”

Rationale: Without access to source code there is no possibility to alter the

programming of the software. Further modifications including repair and

maintenance can be done only when source code is revealed.

3. “Derived Work: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and

must allow them to be distributed under the same terms according to the license of

the original software.”

Rationale: The evolution of the software is not the accomplishment, but is to be

maintained; fix bugs and errors; enhancement and modifications are essential. It is

mandatory on the co-developers that the derived work has to be distributed under

the same licensing terms. The concern among the author was that it should not be

86



an embarrassment for the original author; should not be used for criminal use and

spreading virus.

4. “Integrity of the Author's Source Code: The license may restrict source code

from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution

of ‘patch files’ with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at

build time. The license must explicitly permit the distribution of software built

from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a

different name or version number from the original software”.

Rationale: Authors of the original work afraid that under the pretext of

modifications their rights will be seized by other authors. Under the clause

integrity of the author’s source code they have the right to separate between

modifications and their original work by introducing ‘patch files’. Linux, Debian,

and Red Hat follow this procedure for modifications. They make the program

distribute.

5. “No Discrimination against any Person or Group: The license must not

discriminate against any person or group.”

Rationale: This clause does not allow any person or group to be deprived of

availing from the benefits of open source. The contribution of any person or group

shows the diversity and intentions that open source is for everyone and nobody

should be kept out of the process. This came to effect when University of

California - Berkeley prohibited the police of South Africa to use an electronic

design program.

6. “No Discrimination against Fields of Endeavor: The license must not restrict

anyone from making the use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For

example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business or being

used for genetic research.”

87



Rationale: The software must be correspondingly operational to any field

whether it is personal or commercial. Nobody should be excluded. It can be used

in an abortion or an anti-abortion clinic.

7. “Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to


license by those parties.”

Rationale: There is no opening and closing of the software and no signature is

required. It ought to be automatic. It should be treated as a no-signature license.

8. “License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: The rights attached to the program

must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution.

If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within

the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is

redistributed should have the same rights as theirs, who are granted in conjunction

with the original software distribution.”

Rationale: This distribution term excludes additional license deceptions.

9. “License Must Not Restrict Other Software: The license must not place any

restrictions on other software which is distributed along with the licensed

software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs which

are distributed on the same medium must be OSS.”

Rationale: The license must not recommend any particular software. It is only

compatible software and must be installed. On the contrary, it should allow all

other software to merge and run. This clause of open source is associated with

aggregation and not derivation.

10. “License Must Be Technology-Neutral: No provision of the license can be


88



Rationale: This facility is meant to be explicit the licenses which necessitate to

the freedom of individuals and groups to select the best suitable technology as per

their requirements without dependencies.

4.3. GENESIS , DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE

Computer manufacturers during 1950 to 1960 used to distribute software along with

computers. They used to produce their own software or hire software companies to do so.

It was sold as a finished product and there was no trend of outsourcing software.

Typically software was embedded and the distribution of the software along with

computer was a normal practice. At that time source code (human readable programming

instructions) was circulated along with the software and users used to alter the software to

fix bugs and add new features by themselves. IBM’s Airline Control Program (ACP) is

the best example. The first use of computer started as a calculating device and later used

in research laboratories. It made researchers collaboration easy for further development

across organizational limitations. It became accustomed to share the research among

peers and building upon each other’s research. Following are the important events that

mark the difference in shaping OSS.

4.3.1. Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET)

In the year 1969 ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) created by

the United States Department of Defense was the world’s first transcontinental packet-

switched network (digital networking communication method to transmit data) and the

first network to implement the protocol suite TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/

Internet Protocol). This steered to the birth of the Internet in 1969. It facilitates

researchers to interchange information with unmatched speed and flexibility, enabling an

enormous enhancement to collaborative work. It has immensely increased both, the pace

and intensity of technological advancement. At the same time, it brought hackers all over

the world to get connected.

89



4.3.2. UNIX ( Uniplexed Information and Computing Service)

In the year 1969, simultaneously another development took place and that was the

development of UNIX (operating system) by an AT & T’s Bell Lab hacker- Ken

Thompson and Dennis Ritchie. UNIX was originally spelled as “UNICS”. “Peter G.

Neumann coined the project name ‘UNICS’ stands for (Uniplexed Information and

Computing System) as a pun on an earlier system called Multics (Multiplexed

Information and Computer Services)”. (Wikipedia, History of Unix, 2016). Initially, it

was distributed free to other organizations with the intention to further develop the

software. The organization was the University of California- Berkeley which later

founded the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) of UNIX in 1977 and obtained a copy

of UNIX from AT & T’s Bell Labs. Berkeley and Bell Labs enjoyed a strong

collaborative affiliation which helped UNIX to flourish and their relation lasted for the

next four years. During the 1980s, UNIX became more popular and AT & T stopped the

free distribution and charged for system patches. The patch system was evolved by Larry

Wall in 1983. The patch utility enables programmers to update the source code without

disclosing the entire source code. “In 1979, AT&T began to enforce its licenses when the

company decided to earn profit by selling the UNIX system.” (Weber, 2004)

4.3.3. GNU (GNU not Unix) and Free Software Foundation (FSF)

The year 1984 marked as the birth of ‘Free Software Foundation’ with the development

of ‘GNU’ operating system by Richard M. Stallman. The reason behind it was, Stallman

(a computer programmer at MIT Laboratories) was a strong contender of free software

and he did not like the initiative when MIT licensed some of the code created by its

hacker employees to a commercial firm and restricted access to the ‘Source Code’

including MIT hackers who contributed in the development process. Stallman was forced

to choose between his job and his philosophies and he finally left MIT's AI Lab

(Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory) in order to

form the ‘Free Software Foundation’. The history of open source is closely knotted to the

history of the hacker ethos; essentially hackers have sustained this movement. They are

regarded as skilled professional system analyst and ardent hobbyist rather a malicious

meddler or cracker as described by the popular press.

90

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_G._Neumann

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_G._Neumann

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_play

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics



GNU is an acronym for “GNU not Unix”. Stallman used the functionality of UNIX and

wanted to build GNU. He knew that without the community efforts, it won’t be possible.

Hence, it was permitted individuals and programmers to contribute to the development

effort. He published GNU manifesto to framework GNU project’s tenacity and clarifies

the reputation of free software. To prevent GNU from being used as commercial and to

stimulate computer users’ freedom, Stallman defines four freedoms in his ‘Free Software

Foundation’ i.e. right to use, modify, study and redistribute. He also created GNU

General Public License (GPL) sometimes referred as ‘Copyleft’. The GNU - GPL license

guarantees end users the freedom to use and modify the source code, but the modified

code must be made freely available to users that include individuals, organizations and

companies. Stallman was not against selling of GNU software. According to his views

“free software should be free from restriction and not necessarily be free from cost”. The

Free Software Foundation on his portal (Free Software Foundation, 2016) explains that

“Free Software means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it

means that the users have freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the

software. Thus, ‘free software’ is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the

concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”.

A program is free software, if the users of the program have four essential freedom:

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works and change it, so it does your

computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition

for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3).

By doing this, you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your

changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.”

It also further explains that ‘Free software’ does not mean ‘non-commercial’. A free

program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and

commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual;

such free commercial software is very important. You may have paid money to get copies

of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no cost. But regardless of how you

91



got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to

sell copies. Joshua Gay in his book explains that “Since ‘free’ refers to freedom, not to

price. There is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the

freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are

important for the community and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free

software development.” (Gay, 2002)

Apart from inventing ‘Free Software’ concept; establishing “Free Software Foundation”

and developing GNU operating system the Free Software Foundation also published

GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), GNU Free Documentation License

(GFDL) and GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL).

4.3.4. Linux

In the year 1991, an undergraduate student Linus Torvalds at the University of Finland

released Linux kernel (central core of computer’s operating system). He was not satisfied

with Mimix operating system, hence decided to create a free operating system for IBM-

PC 386 series. Linux had been created with the help of GNU tools but GNU was lacking

a kernel and that gap was filled by Linux. Stallman had argued that Linux should be

called GNU-Linux. Torvald formed the Internet newsgroup and called himself a hacker;

appealed hackers to contribute developing Linux and the response was overwhelming by

the end of the year. Hundreds of people worldwide had joined the newsgroup. “Many of

these contributed bug fixes, code improvements and new features to Torvalds’s project.

Through 1992 and 1993, the community of developers grew at a gradual pace — even as

it became generally accepted wisdom within the broader software community that the era

of Unix-based operating systems was coming to an end in the wake of Microsoft’s

increasing dominant. In 1994, Torvalds released the first official Linux version 1.0. The

pace of development accelerated through the 1990s. By the end of the decade, Linux was

a major technological and market phenomenon. A huge complex and sophisticated

operating system had been built out of the voluntary contributions of thousands of

developers around the world. By the middle of 2000, Linux ran more than a third of

servers that make up the web.” (Weber, 2004) .

92



4.3.5. Open Source Initiative (OSI)

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting

Open Source Software which came into existence in the year 1998, founded by Eric S.

Raymond and Bruce Perens. The free software movement of Stallman did not catch the

mainstream. Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens thought that an important portion of the

problem existed in Stallman’s term “Free” software. Their intention was to encourage

OSS in commercial arena and they thought that both Free/Open Source Community and

the commercial industry will benefit from broader OSS distribution; therefore, along with

other hackers, they started the “Open Source Movement”. The licensing terms were on

the same lines as governed by the free software foundation. The difference was OSI

preferred practical benefits rather than philosophical benefits that endorsed granting users

moral freedom offered by free software foundation. The ‘Open Source’ label was coined

at a strategy session held on 3rd February 1998 in Palo Alto, California after releasing the

announcement of the Netscape source code. “In 1998, a group of individuals advocated

that the term free software should be replaced by ‘Open Source Software’ (OSS) as an

expression which is less ambiguous and more comfortable for the corporate world.”

(Raymond E. , 2007). The OSI developed the Open Source Definition (OSD). “The

Open Source Definition was originally derived from the Debian Free Software

Guidelines (DFSG) available at (http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines).

Bruce Perens had composed the original draft of the DFSG and was edited, refined and

approved as formal policy by the Debian developer community in 1997. The Open

Source Definition then created during the launch of the OSI in February 1998 by revising

the DFSG and removing Debian-specific references.” ( Open Source Initiative, History of

the OSI, 2012). “The definition is not a license itself, but a guideline and trademark for

OSS software licenses other than GPL. Licenses according to the OSD guaranteed

several freedom to software users, including commercial users. In order to raise

acceptance of OSS in the business world, the term Open Source Software instead of Free

Software was established and widely accepted. The 1990s experienced a significant rise

in attention paid to Open Source projects. Many companies from the IT industry began

supporting the project. IBM, for example, supports a variety of Open Source projects. In

93



1998, Netscape was the first prominent company to release a proprietary software

product as OSS.” (Weerawarana & Weeratunga, 2004)

The Open Source Initiative (Open Source Initiative, Licenses and Standards)

maintains the list of popularly approved licenses which are widely used and having

strong communities they are as follows:

Apache License 2.0

BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" license

BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" or "FreeBSD" license GNU General Public License (GPL) GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) MIT license Mozilla Public License 2.0 Common Development and Distribution License Eclipse Public License

4.3.6. Other Major Projects and Developments

Open source can be traced back in the early days of computer invention, when software

was generally supplied with hardware. Later improvements in networking technology

enforced the open source movement to work, share and develop software in

collaboration. The establishment of free software foundation and GNU; released on

Linux kernel, emergence of the Internet and World Wide Web marked tremendous

impact on the development of OSS. The free software development process was proven

successful in the case of development of Apache HTTP server and the establishment of

Mozilla and Eclipse foundation. They have been discussed below in detail.

4.3.6.1. The Internet

“The United States Department of Defense awarded contracts as early as the 1960s for

packet network systems, including the development of ARPANET (which would become

the first network to use the Internet Protocol). The first message was sent over the

ARPANET from computer science Professor Leonard Kleinrock's laboratory at the

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) to the second network node at Stanford

Research Institute (SRI). Packet switching networks such as ARPANET, NPL network,

CYCLADES, Merit Network, Tymnet, and Telenet, were developed in the late 1960s and

94



early 1970s using a variety of communications protocols.” (Wikipedia, History of the

Internet, 2016)

“By 1972, file transfer protocol (FTP) and the Internet mail addressing had been invented

and the system was publicly demonstrated in Paris. The open source mail routing

program Sendmail was originally written by Eric Allman at Berkeley in 1975. It is

probably the oldest open source product still in widespread use since it predates BSD and

GNU efforts by years. The Internet switched to full TCP/IP protocol in 1981. At that

time, Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND), the open source program that implements

DNS and maps name such as ‘news.google.com’ to the Internet addresses such as

‘10.1.203.45,’ was written. This program runs on 95 percent of the Internet name servers

and all the root DNS servers.” (Kavanaugh, 2004)

The Internet has transformed the world of computers and communications like never

before. It has a global broadcasting ability, an instrument for information distribution and

a medium for alliance and communication between individuals and their computers

without any regard for environmental location. It represents one of the most efficacious

examples of the benefits of unrelenting investment and promotes research and

development.

4.3.6.2. World Wide Web

The World Wide Web was invented by a British computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee in

1989. He has written three fundamental technologies which led the foundation of the

web which is as follows: ( Berners-Lee, 2008)

“HTML (HyperText Markup Language): The markup (formatting) language

for the Web.

URI (Uniform Resource Identifier): A kind of ‘address’ that is unique and used

to identify each resource on the Web. It is also commonly called a URL.

HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol): Allows for the retrieval of linked

resources from across the Web”.

95



The World Wide Web (www) was conceptualized as an open web for public based on the

open standards which enable everyone to create software without licensing constraints.

Berners-Lee might have opted for GPL license but he put in public domain just to ensure

that both open source and closed source developers was allowed to use the concept and

code

4.3.6.3. The Apache Software Foundation

Apache HTTP server is a freely available web server that runs on most of the operating

systems comprising UNIX, Microsoft Windows, Mac, etc. Apache HTTP server is a very

effective project, adopting dispersed development with free sharing of the source code. It

allows open modification and redistribution. Due to the suspension of NSCA (National

Center for Supercomputing Applications), web server gave Apache an opportunity to

develop a web server in 1995. Earlier it was providing patches to the NSCA web server.

In 1999, Apache Group (a team of volunteers) established the Apache Software

Foundation and formed Apache Software License. More than 65% of the websites are

powered by Apache HTTP web server.

4.3.6.4. The Mozilla Foundation

Mozilla Foundation was founded in July 2003, as a non-profit corporation devoted to

public benefit that considers that the Web should be open and available to common

public. In the year 1998 in support to its belief, Mozilla released an open source version

of Netscape. Today another version of Mozilla Firefox is the second most web browser

after Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.

4.3.6.5. The Eclipse Foundation

Eclipse is the consortium of software industry vendor. “The Eclipse Foundation was

created in January 2004 as an independent not-for-profit corporation to act as the steward

of the Eclipse community. Eclipse is a community of individuals and organizations who

wish to collaborate on commercially-friendly OSS. Its projects are focused on building an

open development platform comprised of extensible frameworks, tools and runtimes for

96



building, deploying and managing software across the lifecycle.” (Eclipse Foundation,

2016)

4.4. FREE SOFTWARE VERSUS OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE

Free Software (FS) is also known as Open Source Software (OSS) or Free/ Open Source

Software (FOSS) or Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS). Developers have used

these alternative terms, consequently to describe Open Source Software (OSS) which is

also ‘Free Software.’ The “Free Software Foundation” defines the distribution terms and

says ‘Free Software’ means software that respects users' freedom and community. It

means that the users have freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the

software. Thus, “Free Software” is a matter of liberty, not price. The Open Source

Initiative on (www.opensource.org) has given the distribution terms of OSS that must

comply that it should allow modification, redistribution, open source code, no

discrimination against any person or group or fields or endeavor, distribution of license

who receives the program; license must not be product specific; restrict other software

and must be technologically neutral. The ‘Free Software’ and ‘Open Source Software’

are not only two different terms and ideologies but also the founders who propounded

these two terms advocate two different explanations and stands firm on their

philosophies, although the members of both communities collaborate intensively on

practical projects. These two terms carry a different legacy, variance and hold a separate

identity altogether. The term ‘Free Software’ came into existence in the year 1984 is the

older one of the two terms and the term "Open Source Software" was invented in 1998.

GNU operating system sponsored by Free Software Foundation on its portal addressed

this issue under the heading __ Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source" and

says that “The Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement are

today separate movements with different views and goals, although we can and do work

together on some practical projects. The fundamental difference between the two

movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source

movement, the issue of whether the software should be open source is a practical

97

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html%23relationship



question and not an ethical one. As someone put it, “Open source is a development

methodology; free software is a social movement.”

Hence, ‘Free Software’ is “software that gives the user certain freedom and feels that

proprietary software is unethical and unjust” on the contrary ‘Open Source’ contains a

wider diversity of software than it is allowed by free software, it encompasses free

software as well as semi-free software and even certain proprietary programs. The open

source community has no issues to coexist with the creators of proprietary software and

feel that whether software is open source or free is a matter of practicality and not ethics.

4.5. OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Open Source Software is a phenomenon and a paradigm shift in the arena of software

development. It is not a solitary or aloof assignment but a community based ‘bazaar’

model and divergent to the ‘cathedral’ approach. The origin of the open source movement

started from MIT and the University of California - Berkeley, later founded the Berkeley

Software Distribution (BSD). One decade later Eric Raymond’s book ‘Cathedral and the

Bazaar’ created the third front and reinforced the ‘Free Software Movement’ by replacing

‘Open Source Movement’. The acronyms of such category of software swayed from

‘Free Software (FS), Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS), Free/ Open Source

Software (FOSS) and finally settled to OSS. OSS is not merely freedom of access to

source code but it also matters which commanding standard body heading the project as

far as granting a license is concern. OSS is protected by intellectual property laws but

they are not conventional IP laws. It has been molded according to the philosophy of

access to free software and not to restrict access. This novel method of software

development offers programmers the world, to freely copy, share and modify the

software instead relying on the conventional proprietary method where source code is

considered an intellectual property. This is how OSS challenges the rules of all present

branches of intellectual property.

98



4.5.1. Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property is a different kind of property that grants his owner a right for his

work. “Intellectual property (IP) refers to the creation of mind, such as inventions;

literary and artistic works; designs and symbol and, names and images used in commerce.

IP is protected by law, for example patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secret,

which enable people to earn recognition or financial benefit from what they invent or

create. By striking the right balance between the interests of innovators and the wider

public interest, IP system aims to foster an environment in which creativity and

innovation can flourish” (World International Property Organization, What is Intellectual

Property).

Following is the approaches of OSS explain in contrast to IP laws.

4.5.2. Copyright

The finest example of the use of copyright laws are books. Copyright laws are nothing

but ‘The exclusive, legally secured right to reproduce, distribute and perform a literary,

musical, dramatic, or artistic work” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2016). OSS proponents

disapprove and believe that this law is fully exploited by proprietary counterpart. It is

against the benefits of society and in its place has devised their own copyright vision.

They believe that all OSS should be “Copyleft”.

4.5.3. Trade Secret

Another possibility to safeguard intellectual property is trade secrecy. “Broadly speaking,

any confidential business information which provides an enterprise a competitive edge

may be considered a trade secret. Trade secrets encompass manufacturing or industrial

secrets and commercial secrets. The unauthorized use of such information by persons

other than the holder is regarded as an unfair practice and a violation of trade secret.

Depending on the legal system, the protection of trade secrets forms a part of the general

concept of protection against unfair competition or is based on specific provisions or case

law in the protection of confidential information” (World International Property

Organization , What is a Trade Secret?). The Free Software Foundation is against trade

99



secret and non-disclosure agreement laws because it violates GPL (General Public

License) where the source code has to be distributed freely. It clearly signifies that they

are in perpetual conflict. Therefore, it is impossible that the laws of trade secret will co-

exist with open source.

4.5.4. Patents

Patents are granted by governments as a reimbursement for the exposure of an invention.

It protects ideas, not specific expressions covered by copyright law. “A patent is a set of

exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited

period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention. An invention is

a solution to a specific technological problem and is a product or a process.” (Wikipedia,

Patent, 2016) A patent is an absolute monopoly on using an idea. In the open source

community, it is an undeserved reward because software is developed by many

programmers. Furthermore, software patents pose an absolute hazard to the open source.

If an infringement of a proprietary program by an open source program discovers, it will

bring a halt to the development of open source program.

4.5.5. Trademarks

It is not essential to have trademark before the use of any product. Trademark is “Any

visible sign or device used by a business enterprise to identify its goods and distinguish

them from those made or carried by others. It may be words or groups of words, letters,

numerals, devices, names, shapes or other presentation of products or their packages,

color combinations with signs, combinations of colors, and combinations of any of the

enumerated signs.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 2016) Open source providers are

committed by keeping enough command over their trademarks to guarantee they are an

emblem of quality and safety. There are two ways you can acquire trademarks first by

registering and second by the product will be trademarked by its wide use in public

domain. OSS logos and signs are mostly in public domain and there is no specific need to

register it as a trademark.

100



4.6. FREE / OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE LICENSES

The important tenacity of open source licensing is to reject anybody the right to

exclusively exploit a work. The term license is used to define the legal way copyright and

patent holder award permission to others to use his intellectual property. An open source

license is a way to use its intellectual property in such a way that software freedom is

protected for all. It allows the source code to modify, share under defined terms and

conditions. This allows end users to customize according to their needs and necessities.

Open source licenses are mostly free of charge though there are some exceptions.

Open Source Initiative formulated the definition of OSS and open source licenses must

comply with the open source definition. Before the acquisition of a license, it must go

through the Open Sources Initiative’s (OSI) license review process and should meet the

demands of the definition approved by OSI. Only then such certified license can be called

as “OSI Certified Open Source Software” and is entitled to use the OSI certification

mark. The lists of approved popular licenses are mentioned on the portal of OSI it also

maintains licenses according to alphabetical order and category wise

(https://opensource.org/licenses).

Free Software Foundation on his another portal GNU Operating System sponsored by

Free Software Foundation (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html) gives details of

various licenses and comments about them. The portal gives information about licensing

criteria how to choose a license for your own work and license violation page. It also

maintains a separate directory called Free Software Directory

(http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page) is a catalog of 6000 free software packages and

their licensing information. It helps to know what license a particular software package is

using.

Following are the details of different licenses:

101



4.6.1. Apache License 2.0

The Open Source Initiative on its portal (Open Source Initiative, Apache License,

Version 2.0 ) approved the Apache License. The GNU operating system sponsored by

free software foundation also approved the Apache license (Free Software Foundation

Inc., Various Licenses and Comments about Them, 2016) and declared compatible with

version 3 of GNU-GPL. The Apache software foundation version 2.0 released in January

2004 mentioned the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, and distribution on its

portal (Apache Software Foundation, Apache License, 2016). The license is compatible

with open source, it allows collaborative development and usefulness for both

commercial and non-commercial organization. “The goals of this license revision have

been to reduce the number of frequently asked questions; to allow the license to be

reusable without modification by any project (including non-ASF projects); to allow the

license to be included by reference instead of listed in every file; to clarify the license on

submission of contributions to require a patent license on contributions that necessarily

infringe the contributor's own patents and to move comments regarding Apache and other

inherited attribution notices to a location outside the license terms.” (Apache Software

Foundation, Licensing of Distribution, 2016)

4.6.2. Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) License

The free software foundation and open source initiative both have approved this license.

The free software foundation classifies ‘Berkeley Database License’ as free software

license and declared compatible with GNU GPL. It also gives ‘Modified BDS License’

and sometimes this license is referred as 3-clause BSD license. Open source initiative in

their list of open source licenses mentioned the license details of ‘BDS 3-Clause “New”

or “Revised” license’ and ‘BDS 2-Clause “Simplified” or “Free BDS” license’. The

University of California Berkeley, founded the Berkeley Software Distribution (BDS) for

further development of UNIX operating system, later known as BDS UNIX. BSD

license is a free license which allows both commercial and non-commercial users and

organization to use the software. The Linux information project on their website has

explained the BDS license restriction, “The only restrictions placed on users of software

released under a typical BSD license are that if they redistribute such software in any

102



form; with or without modification, they must include in the redistribution- (1) the

original copyright notice, (2) a list of two simple restrictions and (3) a disclaimer of

liability. These restrictions can be summarized as: (1) one should not claim that they

wrote the software if they did not write it and (2) one should not sue the developer if the

software does not function as expected or as desired. Some BSD licenses additionally

include a clause that restricts the use of the name of the project (or the names of its

contributors) for endorsing or promoting derivative works.” (The Linux Information

Project, 2005)

4.6.3. Mozilla Public License 2.0 (MPL)

The Mozilla Public License is developed by Mozilla Foundation and is free and an OSS.

The license has concerns for both proprietary and open source developers. It is more like

Apace Software License and does not solely advocate copyleft. The free software

foundation and open source initiative both approved the MPL license. The complete

Mozilla Public License v2.0 is available at (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/).

The free software foundation listed MPL as a free license, compatible with GNU GPL,

“This is a free software license. Section 3.3 provides indirect compatibility between this

license and the GNU GPL version 2.0, the GNU LGPL version 2.1, the GNU AGPL

version 3, and all later versions of those licenses” (Free Software Foundation Inc.,

Various Licenses and Comments about Them, 2016). The Mozilla at its website (Mozilla

Foundation, 2016) gives why to upgrade from MPL 1.1 to MPL 2.0 and explains three

under mentioned points:

“MPL 2.0 makes compliance simpler, both for you and for people who receive

code from you.

MPL 2.0 provides patent protections for you and your contributors more in line

with those of other open source licenses and allows your entire community to

protect any contributor if the contributor issued.

Compatibility with Apache and GPL makes code reuse and redistribution easier

for you and for the broader open source community.”

103



4.6.4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) License

Massachusetts Institute of Technology devised ‘MIT License’. It is a free software

license and put very minimal restriction on its usability. It is compatible with other

licenses such as GPL. The open source initiative approved the MIT license “Permission is

hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and

associated documentation files (the ‘Software’), to deal in the software without

restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,

distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom

the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the conditions” (Open Source Initiative, The

MIT License ). The free software foundation considers "MIT License" ambiguous, ”MIT

License" may refer to the "Expat License" (used for Expat) or to the "X11 License" (also

called "MIT/X Consortium License"; used for the X Window System by the MIT X

Consortium). The "MIT License" published by the Open Source Initiative is the same as

the "Expat License" mentions FSF at his website (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-

list.en.html).

4.6.5. GNU General Public License (GPL)

General Public License is the first and most commonly used free software license written

by Richard Stallman the founder President of the ‘Free Software Foundation’. It is the

copyleft license and extends freedom to run, study, share, copy and modify the software.

The GNU General Public License (GPL) version 3 released on 29th June 2007 and its

preamble states that (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html) “Everyone is permitted to

copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it, is not

allowed. The GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to

share and change all versions of a program to make sure it remains free for all its users”.

There are some responsibilities when copies of the software are distributed or modified

that it should respect others’ freedom. One must pass the recipients the same freedom that

has been received by virtue of this license and ensure they too receive the source code.

The OSI also approved GPL 3.0 license and acknowledges the efforts taken by free

software foundation in devising such a strong copyleft license.

104



4.6.6. GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)

After releasing GNU GPL, Richard Stallman felt the need to relax certain freedoms and

FSF developed alternative license called GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL).

The word ‘Lesser” indicates specific not complete freedom to use the software. “The

license allows developers and companies to use and integrate software released under

LGPL into their own (even proprietary) software without being required by the terms of a

strong copyleft license to release the source code of their own components. The license

only requires software under LGPL modifiable by end users via source code availability.

For proprietary software, code under the LGPL is usually used in the form of a shared

library such as DLL, so that there is a clear separation between proprietary and LGPL

components. LGPL is primarily used for software libraries, although it is also used by

some stand-alone applications” (Wikipedia, GNU Lesser General Public License, 2016).

The GNU LGPL released on 29th June 2007 by the FSF

(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) and states that “Everyone is permitted to copy

and distribute verbatim copies of this license document. But changing it, is not allowed.

The version of GNU Lesser General Public License incorporates the terms and conditions

of the version 3 of GNU General Public License, supplemented by additional permissions

listed in the terms and condition of the license”. The open source initiative also

acknowledges and approved this license and the details of the license can be seen at

(https://opensource.org/licenses/LGPL-3.0).

4.6.7. Eclipse Public License (EPL)

Eclipse community is a team of individuals and organization who in collaboration

devised commercial motivated Open Source Software. The software has a weaker

copyleft feature and more suitable to commercial vendors. The complete licensing terms

and conditions are mentioned at the portal of Eclipse (The Eclipse Foundation, 2016).

The open source initiative and free software foundation also listed EPL under their

approved list of licenses. “The receivers of EPL licensed programs can use, modify, copy

and distribute the work and even modified versions. In some cases being obligated to

release their own changes. According to article 1(b) of the EPL, additions to the original

work may be licensed independently, including under a proprietary license, provided

105



such additions are "separate modules of software" and do not constitute a derivative

work.[8][4] Changes and additions which do constitute a derivative work must be

licensed under the same terms and conditions of EPL, which includes the requirement to

make source code available.” (Wikipedia, Eclipse Public Lisense, 2016)

4.7. SOFTWARE AND ITS TYPES

In modern day context software has become life blood. Software enables data to travel

with lightning speed and modern day activities solely depend on it. Public, private and

academic organizations totally depend on computer software and the progress of any

nation depends on software; whether it is economic, politics, social or educational need.

It works as a bridge exchanging ideas, research and collaborations across the globe.

“Software is nothing but executable codes that controls a computer’s behavior and

operations. It also refers to a full cycle of processes from basic architecture to

development, packaging and distribution. It is responsible in controlling, integrating and

managing individual hardware components of a computer system so that other software

and users of the system see it as a functional unit without being concerned with the low-

level details of the computational system.” (Pankaja N & Mukund Raj, 2013)

Following are the different models explained in detail.

4.7.1. Free/ Open Source Software (FOSS)

Open Source Software is copyleft software whose source code is freely available. It gives

the right to the user to study, change and distribute the software freely to anyone and for

any purpose without any discrimination. The term ‘Open Source’ or ‘Free Software’ is

used interchangeably to signify free software. Nearly all free software is open source and

all Open Source Software is free to use, copy, modify and distribute without any

licensing fee though there are some exceptions.

4.7.2. Freeware

Free software is software bundled with the permission to download, use, copy, modify

without any restrictions but further modification and distribution is not allowed. It does

106



not give access to the source code; no community collaboration and development and no

improvement in the software is possible. It is free from monetary gain. Freeware is

generally floated in the market to attract more business.

4.7.3. Shareware

Shareware is the version of software which is limited in access and can be shared among

people. It can be downloaded from the Internet and used with certain restrictions. If a

user wants full access to its features he/she has to pay for the software. It does not give

access to the source code and the owner owns the intellectual property rights. Shareware

software does not allow any modifications and is available without source code.

4.7.4. Proprietary Software

The proprietary or commercial software is the term used for software which is developed

by a software company, whose main intention is to earn money for its development. In

commercial software arena, restricting source code is the basic contradiction to OSS.

Further modifications, customization is not possible unless purchasing of a new upgraded

version of the software. Commercial software is copyrighted software and open source is

copylefted. If a user indulges in actions leading to the breach of copyright conditions, the

selling authority has the right to execute legal actions against the exploiting individual.

4.7.5. Public Domain Software

Public domain software means surrendering the copyright to the public but not the source

code. It is step close to open source and precisely means ‘Not copyrighted’. The software

is available to all without any discrimination and restriction and is not allowed to use for

commercial purpose.

4.7.6. In-house Developed Software

In-house software is software which is developed by the institution in-house for its own

utilization. Whether to commercialize the software is the exclusive discretion of the

developing institution. The need for developing in-house software could be the non-

107



availability of non-availability of the required software or the institution might want to

utilize in-house talent.

4.7.7. Customized Software

Customized software is tailor made software developed by the third party for the needs of

an organization which is purely commercial. Certain additions and deletion of features

are possible and the software is completely customizable according to the needs of the

organization.

4.8. OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE PERSPECTIVE IN LIBRARY INFORMATION SCIENCE Open Source Software is software that contains source code and is typically accessible at

no cost. Besides this, additional features are that OSS must be free to redistribute; free to

view and use; modify and it should not discriminate against any person, field and

endeavor. The introduction of ICT revolutionized information in generation and user’s

perception changed from physical handling of information to online learning. Hence,

libraries are forced to change the method of disseminating information to their potential

users and adopted ICT based solutions for imparting library services. Before the wide

spread of OSS, commercial software forced libraries to buy expensive solutions for

automation and digitalization. Commercial vendors used to sell software and did not use

to relinquish intellectual property rights including source code. Further customization is

not possible for any new feature, libraries had to pay extra cost. Annual maintenance

contract was necessary for the smooth working of the software. Open Oource Software

turned out to be the best considering total cost of ownership (TCO). It is normally

available free and not necessary to buy additional copies of software. It has lower

acquisition and support cost. Today there are many OSS tools and standards which are

freely available for libraries including MARC reader, writer and MARC edit; Z39.50

clients and servers for copy catalog. OSS applications are available in a varied range that

includes library automation software, digital library, content management, journal

archiving, journal publishing, e-learning management, etc. The detail list of potential

OSS that can be used in library is discussed in chapter five of this thesis.

108



4.8.1. Benefits of Open Source Software

1. OSS Philosophy: All the benefits of OSS in LIS irrigates from its philosophy.

The concept started from free software movement which guarantees its users the

freedom to use, run, copy, modify and distribute the software without any kind of

discrimination against any person, field or endeavor.

2. Cost Benefits: Major problem is the procurement of software and its

maintenance. Open Source Software is an alternative to proprietary software and

virtually is maintenance free; free customization since the source code is open; no

annual maintenance contract; regular up-gradation; copyleft license; international

standards; incorporation of new features and multiple numbers of copies. For the

above mention features, OSS stands out to be the best and libraries don’t have to

pay anything. Hence, it is the most cost effective as compared to proprietary

software.

3. Strong Community: To grow effectively OSS requires a lot of community

support. OSS programmers and developers work voluntarily to hand over

unmatched products which are far superior to proprietary software. Open source is

not reliant on the firm or author that originally produced the software, even if the

firm failed the code exist to redevelop further. Millions of programmers from

different parts of the world help to develop the software which is a very strong

point as compared to proprietary software where there is always a fear that the

company might shut or discontinue the product and its support. The

community is working relentlessly to provide social and economic benefits to the

general public without any boundaries and barriers. The job is not done after the

release of software but just a foundation laid. Post software support ensures the

guarantee and sustainability of the software. The OSS community not only

delivers the software but also provides post software support in the form of

written documents, manuals, online links, forums; videos are available to fix bugs

and errors. It is now up to library professionals to carry the wheel by organizing

seminars, conferences, workshops and hands-on-practice sessions.

109



4. Useful OSS: OSS is not only developing software for libraries but also actively

making software for a varied range of fields and areas. Libraries use end number

of software in disseminating ICT-based services to its users. There may be a

certain software which is exclusively used by the library but at the same time,

there are many other OSS that can be used in library as there is a growing demand

due to the explosion of information on the Internet. Hundreds of software can be

used in libraries for better service. The areas include library automation; digital

library; content management, course management, journal publishing and

archiving, citation management; e-learning management’ office suite, media

player; desktop publishing etc. Potential software that could be used in libraries is

explained in detail in chapter five of this thesis. If one calculates the total cost of

ownership (TOC) of software, OSS proves to be less expensive than proprietary

software.

5. Security: OSS is very stable and platform friendly. Developers of OSS after

careful testing of software, release the stable version which is bugs and error free.

Bugs and errors reported are dealt carefully and necessary plug-ins and patch files

are released to see the software works up to mark and reputation. OSS is less

vulnerable to virus and technology. Neutral means it can run on Windows, Linux,

Unix and Mac operating systems. Perl and PHP language of OSS enables it to

work on many platforms. Linux is the most secure and stable operating system

and less vulnerable to viruses. OSS does not depend on any definite hardware or

operating system or platform to operate.

6. Other minor benefits: OSS features includes: cost effective; better quality;

freedom from vendor independence; flexibility, extension;, adds-on, elasticity;

flexible support option; customizability; ability to scale at little cost or penalty;

collaborative development; interoperability; better performance; more reliable;

superior security; local control; pace of innovation; multiple language support;

access to source code; right to- redistribution; modification and use of software

anyway; unlimited report generation; migration of data; compatibility with open

standards and international standards.

110



4.8.2. Drawbacks of Open Source Software

OSS installation and customization is very economical but sometimes the cost goes

higher, that makes libraries deterred from implementing Open source products and

ultimately choose to continue with proprietary software. Libraries are reluctant and bias

towards the very nature “Free” or give importance to brand values. Sometimes handling

of Open Source products and its accountability, embarrassment and mistakes leads to

rejection of it. Librarians should more likely have interactions with the open source

community and expose to open source products on a consistent basis. It will decline their

fear and inevitably reduce biases that may exist. More such drawbacks are mentioned

below:

1. Technical training/ knowledge is a must and in case of severity no immediate

support, but to rely on OSS community. Hiring expert or company sometimes

increases the cost of the software.

2. Migration of data from one system to OSS creates a problem because may be the

library staff is not technically equipped.

3. Documents and manuals of OSS are very difficult to understand.

4. No vendor policy, no accountability and nobody is responsible for it.

5. Sustainability and scalability are questionable till the developers are developing

the product.

6. Most libraries are using proprietary software. If they are switching to OSS they

have a fear that they will lose the data and they have to bear the migration cost.

Some of the proprietary software ensures that a customer should not move to OSS

and they have snapped certain privileges to allow easy migration to OSS.

7. Higher installation charges because it requires experts to do the job.

8. There is no replacement warranty.

9. Due to incompetency of librarian and supporting staff, authorities of an institution

generally avoid considering OSS.

10. Proprietary counterparts for their sustenance are developing incompatible

hardware that does not support OSS.

111



4.8.3. Analogy Open Source Software Versus Closed Source Software

It is important at this juncture before the comparison of two great stakeholders of

software culture to know the difference between Open Source Software (OSS) and

Closed Source Software (CSS). CSS or proprietary software is that software which is sold

under strict licensing agreement and the recipient is not allowed to copy, modify, and

redistribute it. The source code is the intellectual property and not shared with general

public. The individual or company holds the exclusive copyrights of the software. OSS

on the other hand quite contrary to CSS. It is that kind of software which acknowledges

the freedom of users that they are allowed to run, copy, modify, redistribute, copylefted

and does not charge any licensing fees to its users. OSS grants the right to both the

program’s functionality and methodology, whereas CSS grants only functionality right of

the software.

(Krogh & Hippel, 2003) In his article it’s mentioned that, “Source code is a sequence of

instructions to be executed by a computer to accomplish a program’s purpose.

Programmers write computer software in the form of source code and also ‘document’

that source code with brief written explanations for the purpose and design of each

section of their program. To convert a program into a form that can actually operate a

computer, the source code is translated into machine code using a software tool called a

compiler. The compiling process removes program documentation and creates a ‘binary’

version of the program—a sequence of computer instructions consisting only of strings of

ones and zeros. Binary code is very difficult for programmers to read and interpret.

Therefore, programmers or firms that wish to prevent others from understanding and

modifying their code will release only binary versions of the software. In contrast,

programmers or firms that wish to enable others to understand and update and modify

their software will provide them with its source code.”

112



Table: 4.1. Comparison of Open Source Software versus Closed Source Software

Open Source Software Closed Source Software Almost no purchasing cost, the software

is free, no licensing fees, no up-gradation

cost

The software is costly, license and up-

gradation charges applicable

Source code open, copyleft, modification,

and redistribution allowed

Closed source code, copyright,

modification and redistribution not

allowed

Hardware compatible and can run on all

platforms Not Linux compatible

Customization possible Customization not possible

Multiple copies of software allowed Multiple copies of software charged extra

Worldwide support by developers and

experts free

The support provided by only hired

developers and experts under AMC

Famous and used worldwide by top

libraries. Unknown and limited to particular region.

International Standards and migration of

software, data possible

Standards compromised and migration of

software and data not allowed or

chargeable

Software compatible with any operating

system Software limited to certain configurations

Not well documented Well documented

Resources unknown Resources known

Objective to solve problems Objective to fulfill contract

Weak enforcement Strong enforcement

Progress of the OSS is made public Progress of CSS is kept confidential

Collaboration via the Internet Face to face collaboration

113



SUMMARY

The evolution of free software began from the moment the first mechanical computer

came into existence. It was cult and culture that time to provide software free of charge.

At later stage that got discontinued due to decentralization of software industry. Soon

after, the advocates of free software started the movement and what we are witnessing

today is a huge success in the form of OSS. Thousands of programmers and lovers of free

software gathered and got down regulating terms and conditions just to ensure that their

work would not go in vain. Various licenses were written to safeguard the intellectual

property of OSS. Introduction of the Internet gave the biggest boost to free software

developers to freely share their work among peers and make collaborative work stronger

than before. Libraries have become major beneficiaries of the OSS projects. Open source

community made hundreds of software that can be utilized to render the library services

in this age of information technology effectively. Today there are many OSS tools and

standards which are freely available for libraries including MARC reader, writer and

MARC edit; Z39.50 clients and servers to copy catalog. OSS applications are available in

a varied range that includes library automation software, digital library, content

management, journal archiving, journal publishing, e-learning management, etc. When

there are benefits of some phenomenon there are also some drawbacks. It’s a part and

parcel that goes hand and hand. At the end of this chapter the researcher has given a

comparison of OSS to CSS just to assess quickly the benefits and drawbacks of OSS and

CSS. .

114



REFERENCES

Apache Software Foundation. (2016). Apache License. Retrieved May 2, 2016, from

Apache: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Apache Software Foundation. (2016). Licensing of Distribution. Retrieved May 2, 2016,

from Apache: https://www.apache.org/licenses/

Breeding, M. (2002, October). An Update on Open Source ILS. Information Today,

19(9), 42.

Berners-Lee, T. (2008). History of the Web. Retrieved May 2, 2016, from World Wide

Web Foundation: http://webfoundation.org/about/vision/history-of-the-web/

Eclipse Foundation. (2016). About the Eclipse Foundation. Retrieved May 10, 2016,

from Eclipse: https://eclipse.org/org/

Encyclopedia Britannica, I. (2016). Copyright. Retrieved May 5, 2016, from

Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/topic/copyright

Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. (2016). Trademark. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from

Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/topic/trademark

Free Software Foundation. (2016, January 1). What is free software ? The Free Software

Definition. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from GNU Operating System:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

Free Software Foundation Inc. (2016, April 11). Various Licenses and Comments about

Them. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from GNU Operating System:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html


Them. Retrieved May 2, 2016, from GNU Operating sponsored by Free Software

Foundation: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Free Software Foundation Inc. (2016). What is free software? Retrieved May 2, 2016,

from GNU operating system: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Gay, J. (2002). Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman.

United States of America: Free Software Foundation.

115



Kavanaugh, P. (2004). Open Source Software Implementation and Management. United

States of America: Elsevier .

Krogh, G., & Hippel, E. (2003). Special issue on open source software development.

Research Policy, 32, 1149-1157.

Mozilla Foundation. (2016). About MPL 2.0: Revision Process and Changes FAQ.

Retrieved Mau 2, 2016, from Mozilla: https://www.mozilla.org/en-

US/MPL/2.0/Revision-FAQ/

Open Source Initiative. (1998, February). Open Source Software Definition and License

Distribution Terms. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from Open Source Initiative:

https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). Apache License, Version 2.0 . Retrieved May 2, 2016,

from Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0

Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). Licenses and Standards. Retrieved May 4, 2016, from

Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/licenses

Open Source Initiative. (2012, September). History of the OSI. Retrieved May 20, 2016,

from Open Source: https://opensource.org/history

Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). The MIT License . Retrieved May 6, 2016, from Open

Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

Pankaja N, & Mukund Raj, P. (2013). Proprietary software versus Open Source Software

for Education. American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER), 2(7), 124-130.

Raymond, E. (2007, June 16). Goodbye, "free software"; hello, "open source". Retrieved

April 2, 2016, from Cathedral and the Bazaar:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/opensource.

Raymond, E. S. (1999). The Cathedral and Bazaar: Musing on Linux and Open Source

by an Accidental Revolutionary. Beijing: O'Reilly.

The Eclipse Foundation. (2016). Eclipse Public License v1.0. Retrieved May 7, 2016,

from Eclipse: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html

The Linux Information Project. (2005, April 22). BDS License Definition. Retrieved May

10, 2016, from Linux Information : http://www.linfo.org/bsdlicense.html

Weber, S. (2004). The Success of Open Source. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

116



Weerawarana, S., & Weeratunga, J. (2004, January). Open Source in Developing

Countries. Sweden: SIDA ( Swedish International Development Cooperation

Agency).

Wikipedia. (2016, April 5). Eclipse Public License. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from

Wikipedia the free Encyclopedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License

Wikipedia. (2016, May 25). GNU Lesser General Public License. Retrieved May 10,

2016, from Wikipedia the free Encyclopedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License

Wikipedia. (2016, May 18). History of the Internet. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

Wikipedia. (2016, May 4). History of Unix. Retrieved May 21, 2016, from Wikipedia the

free Encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unix

Wikipedia. (2016, May 7). Patent. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from Wikipedia the free

encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

World International Property Organization . (n.d.). What is a Trade Secret? Retrieved

May 5, 2016, from World International Property Organization (WIPO):

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/trade_secrets/trade_secrets.htm

World International Property Organization. (n.d.). What is Intellectual Property.

Retrieved May 5, 2016, from World International Property Organization (WIPO):

http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/

117

CHAPTER V

FUNCTIONAL OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE FOR LIBRARIES:

AN OVERVIEW



5.2 OSS on the World Wide Web 118

5.3 Overview of OSS 119

5.3.1 Library Management / Automation / Integrated Library System 119

5.3.2 Digital Library / Institutional Repository 126

5.3.3 Web Development / Content / Knowledge Management System

132

5.3.4 Citation/ Reference/ Bibliography Management System 136

5.3.5 Journal Management/ Publishing System 137

5.3.6 Electronic Journal Archiving 138

5.3.7 Meta Searching / Federated Searching 139

5.38 E- Learning Management System 141

5.3.9 Office Suite 142

5.3.10 Desktop Publishing 143

5.3.11 Media Player / Flash Media Player 145

5.3.12 Web Browser 146

5.3.13 Scientific Computation Package for Numerical Computations 147

5.3.14 Operating System 148

5.3.15 Server Operating System 150

5.3.16 Cloud Computing Operating Systems 152

5.3.17 Web Conferencing 154

5.3.18 Plagiarism 155

5.3.19 Optical Character Recognition (OCR) 156

5.3.20 Anti-Virus 158

5.4 Other Useful Open Source Software 159


5.4.1 Next Generation OPAC 159

5.4.2 Document Management System 160

5.4.3 PDF Document Editing Software 160

5.4.4 Draw 161

5.4.5 Image Editing and Graphic Designing 161

5.4.6 Audio Video Recording of Talks and Editing 162

5.4.7 Web Downloading 163

5.4.8 Wiki Management 163

5.4.9 Mobile Operating System 164

5.4.10 Web Programming / Language / Server / Database Management

164

5.4.11 Instant Messaging 165

5.4.12 Screen Casting 165

5.4.13 Online Survey 166

5.4.14 Portable Apps 166

5.4.15 Social Networking 167

5.4.16 Project Management 168

5.4.17 Library Apps 168

5.4.18 Virtual Machine 169

5.4.19 Animation and Computer Graphics 169

5.4.20 e-Mail Server 170

5.4.21 Search Engine 170

5.4.22 Workflow / Forms and Case Management 171

5.4.23 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) 172

Summary 173

References 174

CHAPTER V FUNCTIONAL OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE FOR LIBRARIES:

AN OVERVIEW 5.1. INTRODUCTION

Open Source Software has developed thousands of software useful for a varied number

of fields and subjects. It has also developed software for libraries and each satisfies

particular need. Software packages have become a medium through which online and

digital information can not only be maintained but be delivered with optimum time

without any geographical barrier. Knowingly or unknowingly libraries are using many

freeware, shareware, trialware and public domain software without realizing limitations

of software. OSS is more pragmatic and accomplished software that guarantees free as

well as upgraded features which other software packages fail to provide, then ‘why not

use OSS!’ This chapter highlights the functional and practicality of OSS in libraries and

gives their description, special features and technical specifications.

5.2. OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB

Librarians find it quite difficult and on most of occasions get confused as to how to begin

with OSS. The best convenient option to identify a particular software for library is to

attend seminars, conferences and workshops. It is where exposure to OSS and

simultaneously relation with the peer can be established. Following are the websites that

are useful and provide detailed information about OSS.

1. Free Software Foundation (www.fsf.org): Free software movement started by

Richard Stallman. First milestone platform for OSS.

2. Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org): Open Source Software coining

of new term by Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens. The second major revival of free

software.

3. Free Software Directory (https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page): Directory

of free software maintained by free software foundation.

4. GNU Operating System (www.gnu.org): Sponsored by the Free Software

Foundation gives detailed information about licenses and free software

philosophy.

118


Chapter 5: Functional OSS for Libraries: An overview

5. Source Forge (www.sorceforge.net): As of January 2004 total 75,000 projects

and approximately 7, 75,000 registered users.

6. Free/Open Source Software for Libraries (www.foss4lib.org): Developed by

LYRASIS dedicated to providing guidance, library related packages, events and

software release.

7. Open Source Software for Libraries (www.oss4lib.org): Gives information

about software useful for libraries.

8. List of free and Open Source Software packages available on Wikipedia

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_and_open-

source_software_packages) Listed under free software foundation and open

source initiative.

9. Portal Free and Open Source Software available on Wikipedia

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Free_and_open-source_software):

Maintained by free software foundation.

10. FossHub (http://www.fosshub.com/): Downloading and hosting of free and

OSS.

5.3. OVERVIEW OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE

The researcher has pointed out forty-four OSS that can be used in libraries. Although

there could be many more, OSS are available for various purposes and needs, but mostly

a library uses selected software more occasionally as compared to other OSS.

Following is an overview of selected software with their special features and technical

specifications.

5.3.1. Library Management / Automation / Integrated Library System

Library system or house-keeping operations, when shifted from manual to computer, is

called automation of library also known as library management and integrated library

system (ILS). Commonly use house-keeping operations are acquisition, circulation, serial

control and OPAC. Following is the information in a nutshell about the library

automation modules.

119



1. Acquisition: It is the master module. Once an entry is made it can be useful for

varied purposes e.g. ordering, receiving and cross checking of material; claims

and cancellation of order; report generation and accounting; binding control;

bibliographic detailing of OPAC; material reservation, etc.

2. Circulation: It controls transaction of documents-lending and receiving back

from library patrons. It caters reservation of documents; maintaining overdue

records and sending reminders to patrons.

3. Serial Control: Serial includes scholarly journals, periodicals, magazines,

newsletters, newspapers, annual reports, proceedings, etc. The serial control of

software generally handles two components-bibliographic control and processing

control. Bibliographic control includes the name of an e-journal, title, author,

volume and issued number, publisher, etc. Process control includes acquisition,

circulation, claims reminders, weeding out, etc.

4. Online Public Access Catalogue (OPAC): Classification and cataloging are

considered the heart of library. Through OPAC, library collection can be browsed

according to title, author, subject, publisher, keywords, etc.

Many OSS available for integrated library system, e.g. WEBLIS1, PhpMyLibrary,

OPALSNA1, AvantiMicroLCS, Emilda, Java Book Cataloguing System, Senayan

Library Management system and BiblioteQ.

Following popular integrated library open source systems like Koha, NewGenLib,

Evergreen, ABCD and Openbiblio are explained in detail.

5.3.1.1. Koha

Koha is a very powerful first web-based open source integrated library system developed

by Katipo Communications Limited, Wellington, New Zealand for Horowhenua Library

Trust (HTL) in 1999. It was developed using OSS tools Apache, MySQL and Perl and

was released under the GNU General Public License (GPL). The initial release of Koha

took place in the year January 2000 and the stable version 3.22.7 released on 25 May

2016. It works on both Microsoft and Linux Platform. Countries like New Zealand,

120



Canada, Australia, United States, India, Thailand, United Kingdom, France, etc. are using

it extensively for their public, private and non-profit organization’s libraries.

Special Features:

1. Koha is absolutely free to download, released under GNU GPL means no

licensing fees and fully customizable. It is very much user-friendly and has a very

strong backup of international community and developers. Koha gives support

through Internet Relay Chat (IRC), discussion forum and mailing list is available

at (https://koha-community.org/support/).

2. Koha uses OSS based programming software such as MySQL as Relational

Database Management System (RDBMS) as a backend, PERL as a programming

language and Apache as a web server.

3. Koha supports international standards such as MARC 21, Z39.50 copy catalog

and linking of authority files.

4. The module includes acquisition, catalog, circulation, OPAC and serial control.

Other features include a search through keywords, author, title, subject, class

number, reservation from OPAC interface, etc.

Table 5.1: Koha Technical Specification

Parameters Description

Developer/ Creator Katipo Communication, New Zealand

License GNU GPL

Version and Date 3.22.7 released 23rd March 2016

Operating System Platform Linux, Mac, Windows

Programming Language/ Database Apache, MySQL and Perl

URL www. Koha-community.org/

Download https://koha-community.org/download-koha/

121



5.3.1.2. NewGenLib NewGenLib is a first Indian Integrated Library System (ILS) OSS jointly developed by

Verus Solutions Ltd. And Kesavan Institute of Information and Knowledge Management

(KIIKM).

Special Features:

1. It covers all the modules such as acquisition, cataloging, serial control, reports,

web OPAC and administration module.

2. International interoperability standard compliant such as MARC-21, MARC-

XML, z39.50, SRU/W, OAI-PMH.

3. NGL is compatible with operating systems like Linux and Windows.

4. “RFID integration, zotero compliant, and RSS feeds in OPAC.

5. NGL is in android mobile and tablet compatible.

6. Networking – Hierarchical and Distributed networks.

7. Automated email/instant messaging integrated into different functions of

software.

8. Form letters are configurable and use XML-based OpenOffice templates.

9. Extensive use of set up parameters enabling easy configuration of software to suit

specific needs, e.g. in defining patron privileges.

10. Supports multi-user and multiple security levels.

11. Allows digital attachments to metadata.” (Verus Solutions, No date).

Table 5.2: NewGenLib Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Verus Solutions and KIIKM

License GNU GPL

Version and Date 3.1.2. released on 15th May 2015

Operating System Platform Linux, Windows

Programming Language/ Database Java, Postgresql, JBOSS application server

URL http://www.verussolutions.biz/web/

Download http://www.verussolutions.biz/web/content/download

122



5.3.1.3. Evergreen

“The Evergreen Project develops an open source Integrated Library System (ILS) used by

approximately 1,800 libraries around the world. It was initiated by the Georgia Public

Library System in 2006 to serve their need for a scalable catalog shared by (as of now)

more than 275 public libraries in the state of Georgia. After Evergreen was released, it

has since been adopted by a number of library consortia in the US and Canada as well as

various individual libraries and has started being adopted by libraries outside North

America .” (Georgia Public Library, 2016)

Special Features

1. “Circulation: for the staff to check items in and out to patrons

2. Cataloging: to add items to the library’s collection and input information,

classifying and indexing those items

3. Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC): A public catalog, or discovery interface,

for patrons to find and request books, view their account information and save

book information in Evergreen ‘bookbags

4. The OPAC received a makeover in early 2009 with new optional skin

‘Craftsman.’

5. Acquisitions: for staff to keep track of those materials purchased, invoices,

purchase orders, selection lists, etc.

6. Statistical Reporting: flexible, powerful reporting for retrieval of any statistical

information stored in the database.

7. SIP 2.0 supports: for interaction with computer management software, self-check

machines and other applications.

8. Search/Retrieve via URL and Z39.50 servers.” (Wikipedia, 2016)

123



Table 5.3: Evergreen Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Georgia Public Library Service (GPLS) Public Information Network for Electronic Services (PINES) and the Evergreen Community

License GNU GPL, version 2 or later.

Version and Date 2.10.0 released in September 2006

Operating System Platform Linux

Programming Language/ Database C, Perl, XUL, JS

URL https://evergreen-ils.org

Download https://evergreen-ils.org/egdownloads/ 5.3.1.4. Openbiblio “OpenBiblio is easy to use, automated library system written in PHP containing OPAC,

circulation, cataloging and staff administration functionality. OpenBiblio library

administration offers an intuitive interface with broad category tabs and sidebar.” (VA

Software, 2016)

Special Features

1. “Circulation: For staff to check items in and out to patrons and to add new

patrons.

2. Cataloging: For staff to create, modify, or delete bibliographic records, including

uploading of MARC and MARCXML records

3. Online public access catalog (OPAC): A public catalog for patrons to find books

4. Administration: Configuration and management of the system, including library,

staff, material, fines and website settings

5. Reports: Retrieve and format information from the database, including overdue

letters and statistical models for the use of the library's materials. OpenBiblio uses

a special syntax called RPT for its reports so that users do not have to learn PHP

to create these reports.” (Wikipedia, OpenBiblio, 2016)

124



Table 5.4: Openbiblio Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Openbiblio Development Team

License GNU GPL, v2

Version and Date 0.7.2. released on 13 August 2014

Operating System Platform Cross Platform

Programming Language/ Database PHP

URL www.obiblio.sourceforge.net

Download https://sourceforge.net/projects/obiblio/files/ 5.3.1.5. ABCD ABCD stands for "Automatización de Bibliotecas y Centros de Documentación" from its

name in Spanish and Portuguese which means ‘Library and Documentation Centers

Automation’. “It is a multilingual Open Source, web application for the management of

library, containing core library functions such as acquisitions, cataloging, lending and

database administration. It also includes an advanced lending module called EmpWeb.

The development of ABCD was promoted and coordinated by BIREME (WHO, Brazil),

with the support of VLIR (Flemish Interuniversity Council, Belgium) and with

collaboration of many people from different institutions and countries.” (Wikipedia,

ABCD, 2016)

1. “Definition of any number of new databases (similar to Winisis), including: FDT,

PFT, FST and worksheets directly on the Web, or copying from existing ones

either from the Web or from Winisis on a local hard disk.

2. Cataloging of books and serials, independent of the format: MARC, LILACS,

AGRIS, etc.

3. End-user searching (OPAC), Loans circulation, Acquisitions, Statistics, Multi-

Lingual.

4. Library services like SDI, barcode printing, quality control, etc.

125



5. Compatible with CDS/ISIS database technology for the bibliographic databases,

i.e. reading ISIS-databases and making use of ISIS Formatting Language for

producing output and indexing of records.

6. Use of MARC-21 cataloging formats and other current standards or protocols

(Dublin Core, METS, Z39.50).” (Reddes, 2008)

Table 5.5: ABCD Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator BIREME and VLIR

License LGPLv3

Version and Date 2.0


Programming Language/ Database MySQL 5.1, Java 1.5, PHP, Phyton

URL http://reddes.bvsaude.org/projects/abcd

Download http://abcd.netcat.be/files/downloads.html 5.3.2. Digital Library / Institutional Repository A digital library is a library in which a significant proportion of the resources are

available in machine readable format accessible by means of computers. The digital

content may be locally held or accessed remotely via computer networks. Through

metadata search becomes easy and the researched results can be obtained very quickly. A

number of OSS available among them DSpace is widely accepted at national and

international level. Other OSS digital library software includes OpenBiblio, Dinest,

VuDL, XTF, Digital Commons, dLibra, Doks, MyCore, Kete, CONTENTdm, and

OPUS. Following popular digital library software like DSpace, GSDL, Eprint, Ganesha

and Fedora are explained in detail.

5.3.2.1. DSpace

DSpace is basically repository software where institutions can give access to their

scholarly or published contents digitally. It was developed by Massachusetts Institute of

Technology (MIT) and Hewlett-Packard (HP). Through DSpace an institution can upload

126



its exclusive owned contents such as lectures, presentations, articles, conference papers,

theses, audio, video, images, etc. It is a completely digital archiving solution.

Special Features

1. Fully customizable and even the interface can be changed just to feel the software

is developed in-house.

2. DSpace supports Dublin core metadata and other metadata that can be

incorporated in DSpace are MARC and MODS. Dublin core is customizable

where any field can be filled or left out.

3. It supports international standards like OAL-PMH, OAI-ORE, OpenSearch and

URL, RSS, ATOM, etc.

4. Unicode facility, multilingual, manages and preserves all digital formats like pdf,

doc, jpeg, mpeg, tiff, etc.

Table 5.6: DSpace Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator MIT and HP

License BDS

Version and Date 5.3 released on 29 July 2015

Operating System Platform Windows, Linux, Mac

Programming Language/ Database Java

URL http://www.dspace.org/

Download http://www.dspace.org/latest-release 5.3.2.2. Greenstone Digital Library (GSDL)

GSDL is developed by New Zealand Digital Library Project at the University of Waikato.

It is mainly developed to empower library to form its own digital library. It is

multilingual OSS and licensed under GNU GPL. GSDL can be uploaded on the web or

DVD and flash drives. This endeavor came into effect with the persistent cooperation

from UNESCO and Human Info NGO- Belgium. GSDL support formats such as text,

HTML, jpg, pdf, tiff, MP3, doc, etc.

127



Special Features

1. GSDL can be accessed through Netscape and Internet Explorer browser.

2. Full-text search facility.

3. Multiple search facility through author, title, date, etc.

4. Any new files attached to a collection it gets attached with it automatically.

5. Dublin core metadata schema used for searching document.

6. The facility is created for plugins that can be written for a new document type.

7. Millions of documents can be accommodated in GSDL because it is a multi-

gigabyte system.

8. Multiple languages support, unicode support allows any language to be added.

9. Compression facility allows reducing the size of the file.

Table 5.7: Greenstone Digital Library Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator New Zealand Digital Library Project, University of Waikato

License GNU GPL 2.0

Version and Date 3.3.07


Programming Language/ Database C++, Perl

URL http://www.greenstone.org/

Download http://www.greenstone.org/download

5.3.2.3. Ganesha Digital Library (GDL)

“This is the first software developed in Indonesia for creating a digital library. It has

three interfaces: personal, institutional and Internet Cafe. It was developed by a

knowledge management research group at the Indonesian Digital Library Network. It is

XML-based and uses Dublin Core international standard. It was published most recently

on oss4lib, in February, 2003.” (DHI Group Inc, 2016)

128



Special Features

1. “Roaming Membership: Once the user is registered in any GDL server, he/she can

use his/her account in every online GDL server.

2. Synchronization: GDL Partner Server can upload and download file and metadata

to/from GDL Central Server through Synchronization facilities. Membership and

publisher information can also be synchronized.

3. Dublin Core / Indonesia DLN Metadata: GDL utilizes Indonesia DLN Metadata

Standard that based on Dublin Core metadata standard. It opens possibilities for

information exchange with another system on the Internet that also utilizes Dublin

Core.

4. XML-Based Transaction: Data transaction between client and server within GDL-

Network using XML format. It is made possible for the further development of

GDL to become more extensive web-based networking application in the future.

5. CD-ROM Enabled: GDL uses Apache, MySQL and PHP free software that can

be run directly from CD-ROM to make easy information dissemination.” (Naik &

Shivalingaiah, 2006)

Table 5.8: Ganesha Digital Library Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Indonesian Digital Library Network

License GNU GPL

Version and Date 4.0 January 2004


Programming Language/ Database Apache, PHP, MySQL

URL http://gdl.itb.ac.id/

Download http://kmrg.itb.ac.id/

5.3.2.4. EPrints

“EPrints is a free and open-source software package for building open access repositories

that are compliant with Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting. It

129



shares many of the features commonly seen in document management systems but is

primarily used for institutional repositories and scientific journals. EPrints has been

developed at the University of Southampton School of Electronics and Computer Science

and released under a GPL license.” (Wikipedia, EPrints, 2015)

Special Features

Lower the barrier for your depositors while improving metadata quality and the value of

your collection.

1. “Time-saving deposits, Import data from other repositories and services and

Autocomplete-as-you-type for fast data entry

2. Optimized for Google Scholar, works with bibliography managers, desktop

applications and new Web 2.0 services, RSS feeds and email alerts keep you up

dated.

3. Tightly-managed, quality-controlled code framework and Flexible plugin

architecture for developing extensions.

4. Easily integrate reports, bibliographic listings, author CVs and RSS feeds into

your corporate web presence.

5. High specification repository platform for high visibility, high quality institutional

open access collections.” (Electronics and Computer Science, 2016)

Table 5.9: EPrints Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator University of Southampton

License GPL

Version and Date 3.3.13 released on 8th January 2015


Programming Language/ Database Perl

URL http://www.eprints.org/uk/index.php/about/

Download http://www.eprints.org/uk/index.php/eprints-software/

130



5.3.2.5. Fedora Commons

Fedora (Flexible Extensible Digital Object Repository Architecture) is a powerful open

source institutional repository system for managing and disseminating digital holding of

an institution developed by Cornell University. It is useful for digital archiving and

preservation of digital contents. Fedora is known for converting historic and cultural

material into digital format. It is suitable for academic, cultural organization, universities,

national libraries and government bodies.

Special Features

1. “Metadata about content in any format (e.g. RDF, XML) can be managed and

maintained.

2. Scale millions of objects of any size, Access services via RESTful APIs, model

content using linked data best practices and Store content in local or external file

systems.

3. Index content to an external search index (e.g. Solr), index content to an external

triplestore (e.g. Fuseki, Sesame).

4. Trigger workflows to external services using JMS messages, manage

authorization using a pluggable framework and create manage versions of any

repository content.

5. Conduct routine fixity checks on repository content, maintain a complete audit

history for all repository contents and leverage transactions for consistency and

performance improvements.

6. Set up a cluster for high availability and read performance, easy deployment of

WAR file into a servlet container, disseminate metadata using OAI-PMH and

customer driven front-ends.” (DuraSpace, No date)

131



Table 5.10: Fedora Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator DuraSpace

License Apache License 2.0

Version and Date 4.1.0 released on 4th February 2015



URL http://fedora-commons.org/about

Download http://fedora-commons.org/download 5.3.3. Web Development / Content / Knowledge Management System

The creation and maintenance of a website with the help of software such as Frontpage,

Dreamweaver was a difficult and time-consuming task. Coding and testing of web pages

in HTML format use to take a lot of time. Content Management System (CMS) emerged

as a substitute to such web-authoring tools. “Content management, or CM, can be simply

defined as a process of collecting, organizing, categorizing, and structuring informational

resources of any type and format so that it can be saved, retrieved, published, updated,

and repurposed or reused in any way desirable.” (Holly Yu, 2005) Many OSS content

management applications are available such as Joomla, Drupal, Wordpress, DotNetNuke,

Mambo, TYPO3, MaiaCMS, Cushy CMS, Redaxscript, PHP-Fusion, Kompozer, Plone,

PostNuke, Blue Fist, Criblio, Nuxeo, Squiz, EZ Publish, etc. The researcher has given a

detailed account of few selected CM viz.- Joomla, Drupal, and Wordpress.

The details are as follow:

5.3.3.1. Joomla

Joomla is an open source Content Management System (CMS) that allows publishing

contents on the web. It is the most popular software to design, form, manage, and publish

content for portals, blogs, Intranets and mobiles. Its stable version 3.5.1 was released on

5th August 2005 and written in PHP. Earlier versions were written in PostgreSQL and

MySQL.

132



Special Features

1. Joomla supports sixty-four languages of the world.

2. It is well managed and supported software having thousands of professional

developers throughout the world.

3. Regular and one-touch updates keep Joomla active and relevant.

4. Help option on each top right side of the page; system information tool for

troubleshooting; Joomla documentation and user forum are some of the excellent

features.

5. Media manager helps to upload, organize and manage the media files and folders.

6. There are many advertising banners you can add to Joomla.

7. Content management system manages your contents through inbuilt editor

WYSIWYS.

8. Newsfeed management keeps visitors updated with new content. RSS reader

allows receiving regular updates.

9. Joomla extension directory allows more than 8000 extensions to extend your

CMS functionality.

Table 5.11: Joomla Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Joomla Project Team

License GNU GPL

Version and Date 3.5.1 released on 5th April 2016

Operating System Platform Linux, Windows, Mac

Programming Language/ Database MySQL, PHP

URL https://www.joomla.org/

Download https://www.joomla.org/download.html

5.3.3.2. Drupal

“Drupal is Open Source Software distributed under the GNU GPL license maintained and

developed by a community of thousands of users and developers. It is a free software

package that allows an individual or a community of users to easily publish, manage and

133



organize a wide variety of content on a website. Thousands of people and organizations

are using Drupal to power scores of different web sites, including community web

portals, discussion sites, corporate web sites, intranet applications, personal web sites or

blogs, aficionado sites, e-commerce applications, resource directories and social

Networking sites.” (CMS Matrix, No date)

Special Features

1. “Access statistics and logging, advanced search, blogs, books, comments, forums

and polls.

2. Caching and feature throttling for improved performance.

3. Descriptive URLs, multi-level menu system, multi-site support and multi-user

content creation and editing.

4. OpenID support, RSS feed and feed aggregator.

5. Security and new released updates notification.

6. User profiles, various access control restrictions (user roles, IP addresses, email),

and workflow tools (triggers and actions).” (Wikipedia, Drupal, 2016)

Table 5.12: Drupal Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Dries Buytaert

License GPLv2 or later

Version and Date 8.1.1. released on 4th May 2016



URL https://www.drupal.org/

Download https://www.drupal.org/download 5.3.3.3. WordPress

“WordPress is a free and open source content management system (CMS) based on PHP

and MySQL. WordPress is installed on a web server, which either is part of an Internet

hosting service or is a network host itself. The first case may be on a service is like

WordPress.com, as an example, and the second case is a computer running the software

134



package WordPress.org. The example of the second case is a local computer configured

to act as its own web server hosting Wordpress for single-user testing or learning

purposes. WordPress was used by more than 26.4% of the top 10 million websites as of

April 2016. It is the most popular blogging system in use on the web and having more

than 60 million websites.” (Wikipedia, Wordpress, 2016)

Special Features

1. WordPress is a simple and flexible software through which a website, blog,

business or government website, magazine or news website can be created.

2. With WordPress, it is possible to publish posts and pages, insert media, create

drafts, etc.

3. There is a variety of contributors assigned for different tasks e.g. author and

contributor write the content; subscribers have their own profile; administrator

manages the portal and editor works with the content.

4. Quick upload of images and media is possible.

5. W3C standard compliant means compatible with the next generation browser.

6. Built-in comment tool for writing comments.

7. It gives support to seventy languages.

Table 5.13: WordPress Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator WordPress Foundation

License GNU GPL v2

Version and Date 4.5.2. 6th May 2016



URL https://wordpress.org/

Download https://wordpress.org/download/

135



5.3.4. Citation / Reference / Bibliography Management System

Citation management software is useful for writers for recording cited bibliographies or

references during the course of study on most of the occasion when a researcher reads

something online he forgets to save it in a secure place which can be accessible, and

again citation management software solves this problem and one can keep a record of the

referred sources. OSS has developed many citation management software such as

Aigaion, Bebop, BibDesk, Bibus, Docear, JabRef, KNibTex, Pybliographer, refbase,

RefDB, Referencer, Wikindx, Zotero, etc. Among the above referred Zotero is widely

used citation management software which is explained in detail as follows:

5.3.4.1. Zotero

Zotero is a free open source tool to collect, organizes, cite and share your research

sources. “Zotero is the only research tool that automatically senses content in your web

browser, allowing you to add it to your personal library with a single click. Zotero

collects all your research in a single, searchable interface. You can add PDFs, images,

audio and video files, snapshots of web page, and really anything else. Zotero

automatically indexes the full-text content of your library, enabling you to find exactly

what you're looking for with just a few keystrokes.” (Center for History and New Media)

Special Features

1. Zotero integrates with a web browser; online syncing is possible; generation of in-

text citations; footnotes and bibliographies.

2. It also integrates with the word processors Microsoft Word, LibreOffice,

OpenOffice, Writer and NeoOffice.

3. It shows icon on many websites for recording citation that includes Pubmed,

Google Scholar, Google Books, Amazon and Wikipedia.

4. It can copy web page, PDF file and users can add notes, tags and create their own

metadata.

5. It supports more than thirty languages.

6. Through Zotfile plugin, it annotates PDF and sync with mobile PDF reader.

7. It can be used with Firefox browser or comes with stand-alone feature.

136



. Table 5.14: Zotero Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Center for History and New Media (CHNM) at George Mason University (GMU)

License AGPL

Version and Date 4.0.29 released on 8 May 2016


Programming Language/ Database JavaScript with SQ Lite

URL www.zotero.org

Download https://www.zotero.org/download/ 5.3.5. Journal Management / Publishing Software

Journals nowadays are not published in hardcopy, the reason being it is, there is always a

threat of missing hardcopies and organizations prefer to subscribe online databases of a

journal. Those who intend to publish their institutional journals prefer OSS based

software which is free to run and maintain. Journal management or publishing software

helps to publish journal online and most of the open access journals publish their online

journals by using OSS based journal management software. Some of the OSS based

journals are Ambra, Open ACS, Open Journal System, Public Knowledge Management

(PKP), etc. Open Journal System is popular and explained in detail as follows:

5.3.5.1. Open Journal System

Open journal system is developed by Public Knowledge Project. It is the peer-reviewed

academic open source journal released under GNU GPL license. It promotes access to

research on an open platform and enables anybody to publish their scholarly work as a

contribution to public good on the global scenario.

Special Features

1. “OJS can be installed and controlled locally and editors can configure requirements,

sections, review process, etc. All the contents are submitted and managed online.

137



2. Comprehensive indexing of content part of the global system and reading tools for

content, based on field and editors’ choice.

3. Email notification and commenting ability for readers; complete context-sensitive online

help support.” (Public Knowledge Project, 2014)

Table 5.15: Open Journal System Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Public Knowledge Project

License GNU GPL




URL https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/

Download https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/ojs_download/

5.3.6. Electronic Journal Archiving

Electronic journal publication changed the way scholarly contents dealt previously. With

the new online journal publication concept, there arise the needs of its digital preservation

so that it can be accessed without a barrier and not being lost. When libraries subscribe to

any database they are allowed to view and download the articles and when the

subscription expires they are no longer allowed to access the journal and its back issues.

Through e-journal archiving it replicates the copy of the material and safeguards attacks

aimed at corrupting preserved contents. There are various OSS e-journal archives

available e.g. CLOCKSS/LOCKSS. CLOCKSS/LOCKSS is explained in detail.

5.3.6.1. CLOCKSS (Controlled Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe)

The LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) supports open source system. It was

developed by Stanford University, now called as CLOCKSS (Controlled Lots of Copies

Keep Stuff Safe). Its archiving services ensures long-term survival of web-based

scholarly publications for the benefit of researchers. It is the responsibility of a librarian

to protect digital assets for future generation and CLOCKSS is a reliable model that

138



collects, preserves and provides its readers access to published material of the library on

the Internet.

Special Features

1. “The archive is governed by, and for, its beneficiaries, not third-party. Publishers

and librarians have an equal saying in deciding procedures, priorities and when to

trigger a content.

2. CLOCKSS' decentralized, geographically disparate preservation model ensures

that digital assets of the community will survive intact. Additionally, it satisfies

the demand for locally situated archives with 15 archive nodes planned worldwide

by 2010.

3. LOCKSS technology has been safely and securely preserving web-published

content for over 10 years and has evolved with web advances to preserve new

content types.” (CLOCKSS, 2015)

Table 5.16: LOCKSS Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator CLOCKSS team

License No information

Version and Date No information


Programming Language/ Database Red Hat

URL https://www.clockss.org/clockss/Home

Download https://www.lockss.org/support/build-a-lockss-box/

5.3.7. Meta-Searching / Federated Searching

Meta-Searching / Federated Searching is a sort of search engine that crawls and gets

connected with other available search engines and gives desired results to its users. A

metadata search engine when receives queries from users send to other search engines,

the data received will be formatted, ranked and output results will be displayed to users.

139



Today one search engine is not sufficient to search entire web due to enormous increase

in data on the web. Meta search engines are solutions to search engine’s limitation or

incapability of searching relevant information from the Internet. There is a number of

OSS offering this service such as DbWiz, Dbwil, Pazpar2, LibraryFind, Masterkey, etc.

Pazpar2 is explained in detail as follow:

5.3.7.1. Pazpar2

“Pazpar2 is a stand-alone meta search engine with a web-service API, designed to be

used either from a browser-based client (JavaScript, Flash, Java applet, etc.), from server-

side code, or any combination of the two. Pazpar2 is a highly optimized client designed

to search many resources in parallel. It implements record merging, relevance-ranking

and sorting by arbitrary data content and facet analysis for browsing purposes. It is

designed to be data-model-independent and is capable of working with MARC,

DublinCore, or any other XML-structured response format XSLT is used to normalize

and extract data from retrieval records for display and analysis.” (Index Data, No date)

Special Features

1. It is a middleware meta search engine featuring merging, ranking, sorting and

displaying faceted search results.

2. Users interface independent and functionality exposed through XML-based web

service.

3. Search hundreds of targets simultaneously.

4. Access information through Z39.50, SRU/SRW or Apache Solr protocol.

Table 5.17: Pazpar2 Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Index Data

License GNU GPL

Version and Date 2


140



Programming Language/ Database PHO, Perl, Java

URL http://www.indexdata.com/pazpar2

Download http://ftp.indexdata.dk/pub/pazpar2/

5.3.8. E-Learning Management System

Electronic learning management system is an online learning where the education is

acquired online. Through e-learning management system one can create e-content,

organize courses, deliver the contents, enroll students and monitor and assess their

performance. Educational institutions use e-learning to keep their students updated and

mainly share the course material and encourage online learning. Today it has become a

viable medium enhancing educational methodology. OSS offers a variety of e-learning

software that includes Moodle, OLAT, ILIAS, ATutor, etc.

5.3.8.1. Moodle

Moodle is known as course management system also learning management system useful

for educators, administrators and learners for creating effective online learning sites. It

has more than seventy-nine million users worldwide across academic and enterprise

level. It supports both teaching and learning process where students and teachers both

benefit. Moodle is an open source, easy to use and well-documented software where

anyone can use and modify it. It supports 120 languages and community discussions are

also available in various languages.

Special Features

1. Moodle allows educators to create their own portal and uploads course material

that makes learning easy, anytime, anywhere.

2. The personalized dashboard allows users to display their course material however

they please.

3. Collaborative tools and activates through forum, links and wikis.

4. Its calendar tool keeps track of academic activities, information about group

meeting and other personal events can be maintained.

5. It offers cloud services and saves files on OneDrive, Dropbox and Google Drive.

141



6. Its text editor formats text and adds media images across all web browsers.

7. It notifies alerts, new assignments, deadlines and also sends private messages.

8. It allows customization and user can change theme, color and logo.

9. It is multilingual, offers secure authentication, bulk course creation and backup,

supports open standards and interoperable.

Table 5.18: Moodle Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Martin Dougiamas

License GPLv3

Version and Date 3.1. released on 23rd May 2016



URL www.moodle.org

Download https://download.moodle.org/ 5.3.9. Office Suite

Office suite is collection of software typically containing Word Editor, Spreadsheet,

Presentation and other programs. There are different types of commercial as well as OSS

office suites available e.g. Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice, Microsoft Office, Google

Docs, Writer, Calc, Impress, Base, LaTex, etc. LiberOffice is explained in detail as

follows:

5.3.9.1. LiberOffice

1. “LibreOffice 5.1 features new integration with remote servers such as Microsoft

SharePoint, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive, Alfresco, WebDAV, and FTP

servers.

2. “Open a Remote File” and “Save to Remote Server” options under File menu give

you easy access to this feature.

3. New features include streamlined menus and remote server support.

4. The sidebars also get some attention, with the addition of a new Chart sidebar that

allows quicker access to chart-editing options.

142



5. Work on LibreOffice web and Android apps are going on.

6. There are also improvements for importing old Microsoft Office documents in

binary formats—that means DOC, XLS and PPT files. Improvements for

importing RTF files and Microsoft Visio projects are also included.

7. LibreOffice supports new file types, too. It can now import Microsoft Write (.wri)

documents and Apple Keynote 6 (.key) presentations. On Linux, LibreOffice can

now import Gnumeric spreadsheet files.” (IDG Network, 2016).

Table 5.19: LiberOffice Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator The Document Foundation

License GNU GPL, LGOL3, MPL v2.0

Version and Date 5.13 released on 12th May 2016

Operating System Platform Linux, Windows, Android, FreeBDS

Programming Language/ Database C++, Java, Python

URL https://www.libreoffice.org/

Download https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-fresh/

5.3.10. Desktop Publishing

Desktop publishing abbreviated as (DTP). It is the software that publishes high-quality

document comprising of texts and images. Its varied typefaces, graphs and multi-color

allow generating unmatched quality document best suited for printing purpose. There are

many OSS and commercially based software available to serve this purpose. Scribus is

one of the most widely OSS DTP software which is explained in detail as follows:

5.3.10.1. Scribus

Scribus is the OSS page layout program for Linux, Windows, Mac, Debian, Solaris, etc.

“Underneath a modern and user-friendly interface. Scribus supports professional

publishing features, such as color separations, CMYK and spot colors, ICC color

management and versatile PDF creation. Scribus has many unexpected touches, such as

143



powerful vector drawing tools, support for a huge number of file types via import/export

filters, emulation of color blindness or the rendering of markup languages like LaTeX or

Lilypond inside Scribus. Scribus file format is XML-based and open.” (Scribus, 2016)

Special Features

1. Scribus helps design magazines, newsletters, brochures, calendars, etc.

2. Scribus supports many image formats; sets professional image setting and is

available in more than 24 languages.

3. ICC color management and comes with Unicode character encoding.

4. Built-In scripting engine and level 3 postscript driver.

5. It imports option ready for Open Office; save professional PDF files and bundle

with interactive interface.

Table 5.20: Scribus Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Scribus Team

License GNU GPL v2

Version and Date 1.4.6.

Operating System Platform Linux, Mac, Windows

Programming Language/ Database Python, C++

URL https://www.scribus.net/

Download https://www.scribus.net/downloads/stable-branch/

5.3.11. Media Player / Flash Media Player

Media player is a software application used to play, store and organize digital audio,

images and video. Most of the operating systems are having their own built-in media

application that plays music and other multimedia. The OSS media players are

OpenFOAM, Songbird, VLC, JWFlash Player, Flow Player, etc. VLC is explained in

detail as below:

144



5.3.11.1. VLC

“VLC is a renowned media player that works with most multimedia files DVDs, audio

CDs, VCDs and various streaming protocols. It is also a compelling server that streams

live and on-demand video, through both IPv4 and IPv6 protocols, on a high-bandwidth

network. VLC’s versatility, advanced controls and broad support for numerous file types

make it a popular choice for media playback and conversion worldwide.” (Sourceforge,

2016)

Special Features

1. It plays files, discs, webcams, devices and stream videos.

2. It decodes most platforms and is compatible with almost all hardware.

3. Plays all formats MPEG-1/2, Div X, MPEG-4, AVC, WMV- 1,2,3, Cinepak,

Dirac, Theora, etc.

4. Synchronize subtitle, video and audio filters.

Table 5.21: VLC Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator VideoLAN

License GNU Lesser General Public

Version and Date 2.2.4 released on 5th June 2016


Programming Language/ Database C,C++ (with Qt)

URL https://www.videolan.org/vlc/

Download https://www.videolan.org/vlc/

5.3.12. Web Browser

Web browser is such an application that locates, retrieves and shows contents on the

World Wide Web including web pages, images, videos and other files. Information is

identified by a ‘Uniform Resource Locator or Identifier (URI/URL). It is based on

hyperlink technology. There are a variety of OSS web browsers available such as Mozilla

Firefox, Google Chrome, Thunderbird, etc. Firefox is explained below in detail:

145



5.3.12.1. Mozilla Firefox Mozilla Firefox is an open source web browser developed by Mozilla Foundation.

Mozilla is presently available in seventy-nine languages. It is a non-profit organization

striving to make web better for users. It works on all operating systems. Currently, more

than five hundred million people are using it worldwide. This proves the popularity of the

browser. Firefox protects personal information and a highly secure web browser that

safeguards your private information from others. It has more than eight thousand add-ons

and fully customizable according to your needs.

Special Features

1. Firefox allows users to add new extensions.

2. It has got a variety of themes and skinning that can resemble other browsers

theme.

3. Convenient tabs that allow multiple files to open in the browser.

4. The search box at the top right corner allows users simultaneously to search some

desired queries on the Internet.

5. Spell check features correct the wrong entry and underline wrong word in red.

6. Firefox synchronizes your bookmarks wherever you move away from your

desktop.

7. One can connect friends with just a single click, no need to log-in, passwords or

accounts required and no extra download.

Table 5.22: Web Browser Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Mozilla Foundation

License MPL

Version and Date 46

Operating System Platform Linux, Windows, Android, FreeBSD

Programming Language/ Database C, C++, JavaScript

URL http;//mozilla.org/firefox

Download https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/

146



5.3.13. Scientific Computation Package for Numerical Computations

Scientific Computation Package for Numerical Computations is a science related to

statistical analysis with the help of a computer. Scilab is OSS and is explained in detail as

follows:

5.3.13.1. Scilab Scilab is used to solve numerical problems for engineering and scientific mathematical

complex functions through computer. It is free and OSS that analyses, calculates,

displays graphical and statistical results in a far accurate and quicker manner. “It can be

used for signal processing, statistical analysis, image enhancement, fluid dynamics

simulations, numerical optimization and modeling, simulation of explicit and implicit

dynamical systems and symbolic manipulations.” (Wikipedia, Scilab, 2016)

Special Features

1. “Maths & Simulation: For usual engineering and science applications including

mathematical operations and data analysis.

2. 2-D & 3-D Visualization: Graphics functions to visualize, annotate and export

data and many ways to create and customize various types of plots and charts.

3. Optimization: Algorithms to solve constrained and unconstrained continuous and

discrete optimization problems.

4. Statistics: Tools to perform data analysis and modeling

5. Control System Design & Analysis: Standard algorithms and tools for control

system study

6. Signal Processing: Visualize, analyze and filter signals in time and frequency

domains.

7. Application Development: Increase Scilab native functionalities and manage data

exchanges with external tools.

8. Xcos - Hybrid dynamic systems modeler and simulator: Modeling mechanical

systems, hydraulic circuits, control systems (Scilab, 2015).”

147



Table 5.23: Scilab Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Scilab Enterprises

License CeCILL (GPL compatible)

Version and Date 5.5.2. 1st April 2015


Programming Language/ Database C, C++, Java, Fortran

URL www.scilab.org

Download http://www.scilab.org/download/latest

5.3.14. Operating System Operating system is computer system software. Without Operating System no computer

can start or run. It performs basic functions and tasks and responds to the queries received

from keyboard. It displays result in a quite organized way keep track of files and

directories. Operating System manages both computer hardware and software. It controls

all application programs loaded on computer. It is multitasking that allows multiple

programs to be run at the same time and determines which application is to be run in

which sequence and how much time is required responding to that application. It shares

internal memory to multiple applications, handles external devices attached such as flash

drives, printers and dial-up ports. There are many Operating Systems available and as

regard to OSS-UNIX/Linux, Ubuntu, Fedora, CentOS, Debian, Linux Mint, Suse, Dream

Linux, Red Hat, OpenSUSE, GNU, OpenSolaris, etc. are worth mentioning. Ubuntu is

the flavor of Linux and is explained below in detail.

5.3.14.1 Ubuntu

Ubuntu is an extensively popular Linux-based operating system which can be used for

desktops, laptops and servers. It is OSS, free to download and use. Presently more than

twenty million users across the globe are using it and roughly around five percent of

desktop Operating System is run by Ubuntu. It contains all the necessary applications

such as office suite, browsers, email, media apps and games.

148



Special Features

1. Ubuntu offers many free applications that are compatible with software they are;

Liber Office – office suite, Firefox – Internet browser, Thunderbird – e-mail,

news, and chat client, Transmission downloads multiple files, Games Sudoku

and Chess, Telegram – mobile and desktop messaging, Chromium – web browser,

Dropbox – cloud back-up, Twitter – social media, VLC player – media player,

and Gimp – image designing.

2. Dash home search option searches things that are stored on either web or in

computer, Ubuntu searches for all.

3. Ubuntu is fully hardware compatible. The minimum requirement to install Ubuntu

is 512MB RAM/ and HDD 5 GB. For low specific machines, versions like

Lubuntu and Xubuntu are useful.

4. Cloud integration is up to 5GB and is free with Ubuntu.

5. Ubuntu is having a built-in firewall and there is no need to install separate anti-

virus.

Table 5.24: Ubuntu Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Ubuntu Community

License GNU GPL

Version and Date 16.04 released on 21st April 2016

Operating System Platform C/C++, Java, Fortran, Python, Perl, PHP, Ruby, Lisp, etc.

Programming Language/ Database No Information

URL http://www.ubuntu.com/

Download http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/ 5.3.15. Server Operating System

“Servers, the foundations of client/server model of computing. A Server Operating

System (SOS) is a set of abstractions and runtime support for specialized, high-

performance server applications. A good SOS should provide (1) tools and

parameterizable default implementations of server abstractions (e.g., network protocol

149



implementation, storage management, etc.) to support modular construction of server

applications, (2) full freedom to replace or override these default implementations and

specialize server abstractions based on application-specific characteristics and (3)

protection boundaries, such that multiple applications (including both highly specialized

servers and “normal” applications) can timeshare a high-performance system

effectively.” (Kaashoek , Engler, & Wallach, 1996)

5.3.15.1 RedHat Enterprise Linux

Red Hat is a leading Open Source Software solution provider which engages in providing

cloud, Linux, middleware, storage and virtualization technologies. Red Hat Enterprise

Linux (RHEL) is the next generation platform to build a modern datacenter. It gives

unmatched stability and flexibility to reallocate resources towards meeting new

challenges. “Red Hat Enterprise Linux is released in server versions for x86, x86-64,

Itanium, PowerPC and IBM System z, and desktop versions for x86 and x86-64. All of

Red Hat's official support and training, together with the Red Hat Certification Program,

focuses on Red Hat Enterprise Linux platform. Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server

subscription is available at no cost for development purpose. Developers need to register

for Red Hat Developer Program and agree to license terms forbidding production use.

This free developer subscription was announced on March 31, 2016.” (Wikipedia, Red

Hat Enterprise Linux, 2016)

Special Features

1. “Architecture: Red Hat Enterprise Linux is ready for whatever infrastructure

choices you make, efficiently integrating with other operating environment,

authentication and management systems. Whether your primary goal is to build

network-intensive applications, massively scalable data repositories or a build-

once-deploy-often solution that performs well in physical, virtual and cloud

environments. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has the functionality to support your

project.

2. System Administrators: Red Hat Enterprise Linux has new features that help you

do your job better. You’ll have better insights into what the system is doing and

150

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System_z

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Certification_Program



more control to optimize it, with unified management tools and system-wide

resource management that reduce administrative burden. Container-based

isolation and enhanced performance tools allow you to see and adjust resource

allocation to each application. And, of course, there are continued improvements

in scalability, reliability, and security.

3. Developers and Dev-Ops: “Red Hat Enterprise Linux has more than just

operating system functionality; it provides a rich application infrastructure with

built-in mechanism for security, identity management, resource allocation and

performance optimization. In addition to well-tuned default behaviors, you can

take advantage of controls for application resources so you don’t leave

performance to chance. Red Hat Enterprise Linux includes the latest stable

version of the most in-demand programming languages, databases and runtime

environments.” (Red Hat Inc., 2016)

Table 5.25: RedHat Enterprise Linux Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Red Hat Inc.

License GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) 5.3; the GNU Project Debugger (GDB) 7.11

Version and Date 7.2 released on 19th November 2015


Programming Language/ Database Open source databases (MariaDB 10.1; MongoDB 3.2; and PostgreSQL 9.5) and open source languages (Node.js v4.4; Python 3.5; Ruby 2.3; and Rails 4.2), as well as Maven 3.3.

URL https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-linux

Download https://idp.redhat.com/idp/

151



5.3.16. Cloud Computing Operating Systems Cloud computing is also known as on-demand computing. Its service models are SaaS

(software as a service), PaaS (platform as a service) and IaaS (infrastructure as a service).

It’s a subscription-based service that is rendered via the Internet. Cloud computing

provides software, IT infrastructure and platform to develop software on third party data

centers. OSS provides various cloud computing operating systems they are Glide,

myGoya, Kohive, Zimdesk, Cloudo, etc. Zimdesk cloud operating system is explained

below in detail.

5.3.16.1. Zimdesk “ZimDesk is an online operating system that uses concepts of cloud computing (Cloud

Computing). The same is licensed under GPL and has a range of typical applications of

operating systems such as web browser, file manager, office applications and instant

messenger.” (Wikipedia, ZimDesk, 2015) For access to Zimdesk one must register

online. After registration, one can explore many features and functions which are

available. Some of the key features are explained below in detail.

Special Features

1. “Zimdesk Premier offers unlimited workspace, unlimited number of groups and

invites - with added 128-bit SSL security.

2. It provides a virtual desktop and a massive 2Gb personal workspace is also

available.

3. It consists of features like Online Drive and file manager.

4. It can create and manage up to 100 public or private work/interest groups.

5. Audio and video files on Zimdesk, can be upload and managed.

6. Personal and work-related Blogs can be created and managed.

7. It has features to add RSS feeds for the entire site, group and individual users.

8. It offers facilities of social bookmarking with searching within bookmark

descriptions.

9. Calendars and event calendars for sitewide events can be projected.

152



10. It provides configurable user profiles with searchable descriptions.

11. It also has features to create lists of "contacts" among site members.

12. It also contains a suite of web-enabled "office" applications, including word

processor, spreadsheet.” (Yuvraj Mayank & Singh, 2013)

Table 5.26: Glide Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Zimdesk Ltd.

License GNU GPL

Version and Date No information

Operating System Platform No information

Programming Language/ Database PHP, HTML, AJAX, JAVA

URL http://www.zimcompany.com/zimdesk/

Download http://www.zimcompany.com/zimdesk/ 5.3.17. Web Conferencing

Web conferencing system is a kind of communication form through which multiple users

can do voice chat, send text and live video chat. Moreover, they can view the same

screen. This process is called as Real-Time Communication (RTC) system. OSS has web

conferencing software such as WebHuddle and Dimdim. WebHuddle is explained below

in detail.

5.3.17.1 WebHuddle

WebHuddle is a web conferencing online tool which help people to schedule their

meetings. In today’s world traveling cost constraints budget and does not allow people to

move frequently. Instead, they prefer web conferencing where multiple numbers of

people can dialogue and exchange their views simultaneously. WebHuddle simply makes

virtual meeting easy by simply registering and creating your own profile. Following are

the features of WebHuddle:

153



Special Features

1. “Simple: Client runs in your web browser, through firewalls and proxies, and

requires no installation. User interface requires little or no training. Secure: The

industry-standard HTTPS protocol secures all network communication. Small:

The client applet weighs in at only 75 to 175 kilobytes, depending on platform

and features used.

2. Standard: WebHuddle works on Java-enabled Linux, Windows, Unix, and Mac

operating systems. WebHuddle uses the same protocol as web browsers, HTTPS,

so your IT department doesn’t need to get involved.

3. Open Source: Leverage the many benefits of Open Source Software, including

value, transparency and flexibility.” (McCaughey, 2013)

Table 5.27: WebHuddle Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator John McCaughey

License GNU GPL

Version and Date 0.4.9.

Operating System Platform Linux, Windows, Mac, Unix


URL https://www.webhuddle.com/

Download https://sourceforge.net/projects/webhuddle/

5.3.18. Plagiarism

Plagiarism is a kind of practice where someone copies somebody’s work and projects it

as his own. It can be written text, ideas and expressions and considered as academic

immorality. It is yet not declared as a crime but a person can be persecuted though

copyright infringement act. There are many OSS plagiarism applications available. They

are Desktop Plagiarism, Lente, Plaggie, AntiPlagiarism, Plagiarism Checker, etc.

154



5.3.18.1 Plaggie1.1

“Plaggie is a standalone Open Source Plagiarism detection application for Java programs.

The original authors are Aleksi Ahtiainen and Mikko Rahikainen. This modified version

was then integrated with Web-CAT(http://web-cat.org/), which is flexible, automated

grading system designed to process computer programming assignments. It serves as a

learning environment for software testing tasks and helps automatically assess student

assignments.” (Sourceforge, Plaggie 1.1, 2016)

Special Features

1. “Presentation of results: By default, Plaggie’s results are shown in plain text on

the standard output and are stored in a graphical HTML format (using frames). It

also offers an option to disable the plain text output. The output includes a table

showing statistics such as the distribution of different similarity values, the

number of files in submissions, etc. The HTML report includes a sortable table

containing top results and their various similarity values. For further inspection a

submission can be clicked which leads us to a side-by-side comparison of files,

highlighting similarities.

2. Usability: Configuring Plaggie has to be done via a configuration file that is

placed in the directory containing submissions. Running Plaggie is done using its

command line interface.

3. Exclusion of template code: Template code can be excluded by providing the file

containing the template code. In addition, Plaggie offers the possibility to exclude

code from comparison based on filename, subdirectory name, or interface.

4. Exclusion of small files: Plaggie does allow excluding submissions from results

below a certain similarity value. It does not, however, allow the exclusion of files

based on their size. Submission or file-based rating: Plaggie compares file by

file, but accumulates the results per submission.” (Hage, Rademaker, & Vugt,

2010)

155



Table 5.28: Plaggie1.1 Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Lawan Subba

License GNU GPL v2

Version and Date 1.1.

Operating System Platform Unix, Linux


URL http://www.cs.hut.fi/Software/Plaggie/

Download https://sourceforge.net/projects/plaggie/

5.3.19. Optical Character Recognition (OCR)

Optical character recognition is a technology that transforms scanned documents, images,

handwritten papers, captured digital camera images into searchable text file. At times, it

becomes difficult to utilize scanned documents when the same matter is required in a text

file. At this occasion OCR plays an important role and through OCR software, we can

convert scanned file into an editable file. OSS has taken the cognizance of this fact and

there are many OSS-OCR available viz.: Tesseract, Screen Translator, Sanskrit / Hindi

Tesseract OCR, Toxin OCR, Terese OCR verifier, Viet OCR, etc.

5.3.19.1 Tesseract

Tesseract was initially developed by Hewlett Packard between 1985 to 1994 and the lead

developer was Ray Smith. In 2005 HP declared Tesseract as open source and at present

Google is the lead developer of this software. It can give output in a text file, PDF and

HTML, also it can create searchable PDF.

Wikipedia has described its features and they are as follows:

Special Features

1. “The initial versions of Tesseract could only recognize English language text.

Tesseract v2 added six additional Western languages (French, Italian, German,

Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese and Dutch).

156



2. Version 3 extended language support significantly to include ideographic

(Chinese & Japanese) and right to left (e.g. Arabic, Hebrew) languages as well

many more scripts.

3. V3.04, released in July 2015, added an additional 39 language/script

combinations, bringing the total count of support languages to over hundred.

4. New language

5. Codes included: amh, asm, aze_cyrl, bod, bos, ceb, cym, dzo, fas, gle, guj, hat,

iku, jav, etc. Tesseract can be trained to work in other languages too.

6. Tesseract is suitable for use as a backend, and can be used for more complicated

OCR tasks including layout analysis by using a frontend such as OCRopus.”

Table 5.29: Tesseract Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Google

License Apache License v2.0



Programming Language/ Database C, C++

URL https://github.com/tesseract-ocr

Download https://github.com/tesseract-ocr/tesseract

5.3.20 Anti-Virus

Anti-virus is software that prevents and detects viruses and destroys them. It tranquilizes

many malicious spyware, malware, trojans and worms and does not allow them to affect

or rob your data. It secures the programs and data of computer from being corrupted from

hackers. OSS is offering a number of anti-virus software that is freely available for users

and they are ASSP, Nixory. IPCop, CalmAV, AppArmor, and Wireshark. From the

above-mentioned software, AppArmor is explained below in detail:

157



5.3.20.1. AppArmor

“AppArmor is an effective and easy-to-use Linux application security system. AppArmor

proactively protects the operating system and applications from external or internal

threats, even zero-day attacks, by enforcing good behavior and preventing even unknown

application flaws from being exploited. AppArmor security policies completely defines

what system resources individual applications can access and with what privileges. A

number of default policies are included with AppArmor and using a combination of

advanced static analysis and learning-based tools, AppArmor policies for even very

complex applications can be deployed successfully in a matter of hours.” (Media Wiki,

2016)

Special Features

1. “Full integration: AppArmor is fully integrated with SUSE Linux Enterprise 11

and with openSUSE.

2. Easy deployment: AppArmor includes a full suite of console and YaST-based

tools to help you develop, deploy and maintain application security policies.

3. Powerful security: AppArmor protects the operating system, custom and third-

party applications from both external and internal threats by enforcing appropriate

application behavior.

4. Reporting and alerting: Built-in features allow you to schedule detailed event

reports and configure alerts based on user-defined events.

5. Sub-process confinement: AppArmor allows you to define security policies for

individual Perl and PHP scripts for tighter Webserver security.” (SUSE, 2016)

Table 5.30: AppArmor Anti-Virus Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Canonical Ltd.

License GNU GPL

Version and Date 2.9.1. 15th December 2014


158



Programming Language/ Database C, Perl, C++, sh

URL http://apparmor.net

Download https://launchpad.net/apparmor/2.9/2.9.3/+download/apparmor-2.9.3.tar.gz.asc

5.4. OTHER USEFUL OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE

Apart from above-listed OSS, there are other useful OSS that can be used in libraries and

the researcher felt to give an account the same.

5.4.1. Next Generation OPAC

Next generation OPAC is different from traditional OPAC. It has more sophisticated

search particularly faceted search, tagging and RSS feeds. In OSS, there are a number of

next generation OPACs available and they are SOPAC, Vufind, Evergreen, Bluefind and

Voyager.

Table 5.31: VuFind Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Villanova University

License GNU GPL

Version and Date 3.0 released on 25 April 2016

Operating System Platform NA

Programming Language/ Database PHP PEAR

URL www.vufind.org

Download http://vufind-org.github.io/vufind/downloads.html

5.4.2. Document Management System

Document Management System (DMS) tracks, manages and stores documents. It also

keeps a track on various versions generated and modified time to time by users. OSS

document management systems software includes OpenDocMan, OpenKM Knowledge

Management and LogicalDOC DMS.

159



Table 5.32: LogicalDOC Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator LogicalDOC Srl

License GNU GPL v2

Version and Date 7.4.2. release on 10 February 2016


Programming Language/ Database Java, AJAX

URL http://www.logicaldoc.com/en.html

Download http://www.logicaldoc.com/download-logicaldoc-community.html

5.4.3. PDF Document Editing Software

PDF document editor is software that edits creates, converts PDF to other formats, OCR

compatible, optimizes text size, etc. It has a variety of OSS viz.: pdfedit, pdfjam, pdfjoin,

pdf90 and pdf180.

Table 5.33: PDFedit Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Michal Hocko, etc.

License GNU GPL

Version and Date 0.4.5. released on 10 February 2012

Operating System Platform Unix-like, Windows

Programming Language/ Database C++, JavaScript

URL http://pdfedit.cz/en/index.html

Download http://pdfedit.cz/en/download.html

5.4.4. Draw

Draw is OSS which is useful to create flowcharts, graphs and illustrations from complex

to simple. It has many tools, toolbars, basic shapes, banners that help user use their

creative mind to display on computer. Flash presentation can easily be generated and

Draw supports formats like GIF, JPEG, TIFF, etc.

160



Table 5.34: Draw Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Heado

License GNU GPLv2

Version and Date 1.5.



URL https://sourceforge.net/projects/draw/?source=navbar

Download https://sourceforge.net/projects/draw/files/latest/download?source=files

5.4.5. Image Editing and Graphic Designing

GIMP is very useful OS graphic editor software useful to image- renovating, resizing,

cropping, image format converting and does various specialized tasks. Its stable version

of GIMP is 2.8.16 released on 21st November 2015 and licensed under GNU GPL v3.

Another useful image editing OSS is QCAD.

Table 5.35: GIMP Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Spencer Kimball, etc.

License GNU GPL v3+

Version and Date 2.8.16 released on 21 November 1995

Operating System Platform Linux, Windows, FreeBSD, etc.

Programming Language/ Database C, GTK+

URL http://www.gimp.org/

Download http://www.gimp.org/downloads/

5.4.6. Audio Video Recording of Talks and Editing

Audio video recording of talks and editing is a very useful tool that libraries can utilize to

edit audio and video talks. Libraries not only deal in e-books and e-journals but

nowadays have to do audio video recordings which help a user listen and make powerful

161



presentations. Also sometimes adding audio and video in presentations. In case of

removing some background sounds these Open Source Software packages are very

useful. They are OpenEyA, Audacity, Avidemux, Kino and HandBrake.

Table 5.36: Audacity Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator The Audacity Team

License GNU GPL v2+

Version and Date 2.1.2 released on 20 January 2016

Operating System Platform Linux, Windows, OS X, UNIX

Programming Language/ Database C, C++ (wxWidgets toolkit)

URL http://audacityteam.org/

Download http://www.audacityteam.org/download/

5.4.7. Web Downloading

Due to non-availability of the Internet access sometimes it is difficult to log on to

websites and to avoid such a situation it is handy to download that website using some

software. OSS has HTTrack software that helps download entire website and can be

accessed offline.

Table 5.37: HTTrack Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Xavier Roche

License GNU GPL

Version and Date 3.48-21 released on 14 March 2015


Programming Language/ Database C

URL http://www.httrack.com/

Download http://www.httrack.com/page/2/

162



5.4.8. Wiki Management

Wiki is a free website where people can develop, edit, add and delete a page. It’s a

collaborative effort where people are invited to contribute certain topic of their interest.

Some areas and topics of Wiki are restricted and required registration for access. Wiki

management is available in different flavors that are CoWiki, Instiki, MoinMoin,

PmWiki, Swiki, Twiki and Media Wiki.

Table 5.38: MediaWiki Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Wikimedia Foundation

License GPL v2+

Version and Date 1.26.3. released 20 May 2016

Operating System Platform Windows, Linux, Solaris, NetWare


URL http://mediawiki.org/

Download https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Download

5.4.9. Mobile Operating System

Android was initially owned by Android Incorporation and Google bought it in 2005. It is

designed for a mobile operating system based on Linux Kernel. It has a touchscreen and a

virtual keyboard which allows users to perform certain sophisticated functions. Google

play store helps users of Android to download thousands of applications some are free

and others are chargeable.

Table 5.39: Android Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Google

License GNU GPL v2, Apache License 2.0

Version and Date Marshmallow 6.0.1 9 December 2015

Operating System Platform Smartphones, Tablets, Android TV, Computer

Programming Language/ Database C (core), C++, Java (UI)

163



URL https://android.com/

Download https://android.com/intl/en_in/play/

5.4.10. Web Programming / Language / Server / Database Management

A programming language is a computer language which instructs or communicates

instructions to computer. It controls machine’s behavior and commands. It does actions

like to receive targeted inputs from user. Database management system is a collection of

programs that ensures one to enter, organize and select data in the database. The server is

a computer on a network that manages resources and is available in certain e.g. is a file

server, print server and database server. OSS is having varied of programming languages,

server applications and database management systems, they are; Perl, Tel, C, C++, Java,

Javascript, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Pascal, Phyton, Ruby, and Apache/ Samba/ PHP.

Table 5.40: PHP Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Zend Technologies

License PHP License

Version and Date 7.0.7 released on 26 May 2016

Operating System Platform Windows, Unix-like

Programming Language/ Database C, C++

URL https://php.net/

Download https://secure.php.net/downloads.php

5.4.11. Instant Messaging

Instant messaging is a kind of communication service where chat rooms are created to

send messages instantly. It is a text-based messaging system to communicate individuals

instantly. Pidgin is an open source instant messaging software which lets you log in to

accounts on several chat networks instantaneously. Pidgin performs many functions such

as file transfer, instant message delivery, buddy icons and custom smilies.

164



Table 5.41: Pidgin Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Mark Spenser

License GNU GPL

Version and Date 2.10.12 released on 2 January 2016


Programming Language/ Database C, Perl, Python

URL https://pidgin.im/

Download https://pidgin.im/download/

5.4.12. Screen Casting

Screencasting software captures screen output and uses digital recording of the captured

screen. It contains audio recording narrations of the captured screen. Screencasting is

derived from screenshots where a single picture of the screen is captured. In

screencasting, you can make videos that demonstrate explanation of installations and

many such other activities can be done. OSS has two such screencasting software. They

are CamStudio and Webibaria.

Table 5.42: CamStudio Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Nickthgeek, Windycity

License GNU GPL

Version and Date 2.7.2. released on 19 October 2013

Operating System Platform Windows

Programming Language/ Database C++

URL https://sourceforge.net/projects/camstudio/

Download https://sourceforge.net/projects/camstudio/

165



5.4.13. Online Survey

An online survey can be created online and sent to target respondents through e-mail. It

may contain questionnaire and the results are stored online. It saves time of the company,

individual and an organization who intend to undergo a survey. Online survey software

also analyzes the responses in graphical and statistical order. LimeSurvey is Open Source

Software that can be utilized to do the online survey.

Table 5.43: LimeSurvey Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Carsten Schmitz, Denis Chenu

License GNU GPL

Version and Date 2.50 released on 26 May 2016


Programming Language/ Database PHP based on MySQL, PostgreSQL

URL https://www.limesurvey.org/

Download https://www.limesurvey.org/

5.4.14. Portable Apps

Portable application software allows converting software into portable version so that the

entire files of the application need not copy or install on another computer. It works for

any device such as flash drive, hard drive, cloud drive, iPod, etc. PortableApps is fully

open source and free software that generates a portable version of desired software.

Table 5.44: PortableApps Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Rare Ideas, LLC

License GNU GPLv2, LGPLv2, MIT

Version and Date 14.0 released on 15 April 2016

Operating System Platform Windows, Linux

Programming Language/ Database NA

URL http://portableapps.com/

Download http://portableapps.com/download

166



5.4.15. Social Networking

Social networking or social media is a platform where social relations with people around

the globe can be maintained. Generally people with similar professions, interests,

activities and background come together and share social connection. BuddyPress is

influential community-based software that enables people to come together and socialize.

Table 5.45: BuddyPress Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator John Jacoby, Paul Gibbs, Boone Georges, Andy Peatling

License GNU GPL v2

Version and Date 2.5.2 released on 31 March 2016


Programming Language/ Database PHP, MySQL

URL http://buddypress.org/

Download https://buddypress.org/download/

5.4.16. Project Management

Project management software is used for planning, scheduling, allocating the project.

Through project management software one can complete a task, assignments before the

deadline and also help to generate status reports. Document sharing and collaboration

becomes easy through central document repository feature. The calendar helps to

schedule meetings and activities automatically. DotProject is an open source project

management tool useful to manage projects.

Table 5.46: dotProject Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Adam Donnison, Karen Chisholm, Gregor Erhardt, etc.

License GNU GPL v2, BSD

167



Version and Date 2.1.8 released on 27 July 2013



URL http://www.dotproject.net/

Download https://buddypress.org/download/

5.4.17. Library Apps

Caliber is an open source e-book library management application. It manages e-book

collection and can sort books according to title, author, subject, date, publication, etc. The

finest feature of caliber is: it can even search the Internet to find the metadata of a search

book. Another feature includes e-book conversion into different formats, RSS feeds and

e-book viewer. E-book viewer allows printing, copying and searching facility.

Table 5.47: E-Book Library Management Calibre Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Kovid Goyal

License GNU GPL v3

Version and Date 2.57.1 release on 20 May 2016


Programming Language/ Database Python, C (Qt), JavaScript, CoffeeScript

URL https://www.calibre-ebook.com/

Download https://www.calibre-ebook.com/download

5.4.18. Virtual Machine

Virtual as the name suggested is the absence of existence. Likewise virtual machines

don’t exist in reality but through the Internet they can be operated from different

locations. OSS offers a number of virtual machines Virtual Box is one such OSS

powerful x86 and AMD64/ Intel64 virtualization product for all user. Other such OSS

virtual machines are Xen and Linux KVM.

168



Table 5.48: VirtualBox Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Oracle Corporation

License GNU GPL v2

Version and Date 5.0.20 28 April 2016

Operating System Platform Windows, Linux, Solaris, OS X

Programming Language/ Database C,C++, x86 Assembly

URL https://www.virtualbox.org/

Download https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads

5.4.19. Animation and Computer Graphics

Computer animation and graphics are the skills of creating intimated pages. Through

computer, this is done in two-way. One is 3D animation and another standard computer

painting tools and later saved as movie film. Blender is free and open source 3D creation

suite. Through Blender even video editing and gaming creation is possible.

Table 5.49: Blender Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Blender Foundation

License GNU GPLv2

Version and Date 2.77a 6 April 2016

Operating System Platform Windows, Linux, OS X

Programming Language/ Database C, C++, Python

URL https://www.blender.org/

Download https://www.blender.org/download/

5.4.20. e-Mail Server

Zarafa was previously known as Connectux it provides e-mail storage on the server and

its Ajax-based e-mail client is called WebAccess. It is HTML based. The stable version

169



of Zarafa is 7.2.1 released on 29th October 2015. It is published under Affero General

Public License (AGPL). Zarafa is open source groupware application which has limited

features and advanced features are available in the commercial version.

Table 5.50: Zarafa Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Zarafa BV

License AGPL

Version and Date 7.1.14RC1-51758


Programming Language/ Database NA

URL https://www.zarafa.com/

Download https://community.zarafa.com/

5.4.21. Search Engine

Lucene Solr is the prevalent open source enterprise search engine. It searches many of the

world’s largest sites highly scalable and error tolerant with automated recovery features.

Lucene is developed by Apache Software Foundation (ASF) and stable version 6.0.1

released on 27th May 2016 under Apache License 2.0. It is a cross-platform application

compatible with Linux, Windows and Mac operating system written in Java

programming language. Another OSS search engine is Xapian. It is also open source

search engine released under General Public License V2+ and written in C++.

Table 5.51: Lucene/ Solr Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Apache Software Foundation

License Apache License 2.0

Version and Date 6.0.1. released 27 May 2016



URL http://lucene.apache.org/

Download http://lucene.apache.org/

170



5.4.22. Workflow / Forms and Case Management

Nuxeo is open source case management software which also offers different types of

information management solutions that include content management, document

management and digital asset management. It is developed by Nuxeo Company under the

Apache 2.0 license and stable version LTS 2015 released on 18th November 2015. Case

management is a process that assessed and evaluates health needs through

communication for better quality and cost-effective outcomes.

Table 5.52: Nuxeo (Case Management) Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Nuxeo

License Apache 2.0

Version and Date LTS 2015 released on 18 November 2015



URL http://www.nuxeo.com/

Table 5.53: FoxOpen (Workflow) Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator benbasson, ccameronmills, pnattress,

License BSD License

Version and Date 4.5.27


Programming Language/ Database XSL, PL/SQL, Java

URL http://www.foxopen.net/

Download http://www.foxopen.net/Download

171



5.4.23 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) is software that integrates all the functions of the

organization or business and gives collective result. It integrates business applications

such as accounting, inventory, marketing, HR, etc. Odoo previously known for OpenERP

is open source enterprise management software. It is developed by Odoo S.A. and written

in Python, Javascript and XML languages. Its stable version 9.0 released on 1st October

2015 and licensed under GNU Lesser General Public License v3. Other OSS ERP is

Openbravo.

Table 5.54: Odoo (OpenERP) Technical Specification


Developer/ Creator Fabien Pinckaers

License GNU LGPL v3

Version and Date 9.0. 1 October 2015

Operating System Platform Linux, Windows, Unix-like, OS X

Programming Language/ Database Python, JavaScript, XML

URL https://www.odoo.com/

Download https://www.odoo.com/page/download

SUMMARY

The existence of OSS solely depends upon the health of community. If there won’t be

community support the software will get obsolete. You don’t need to be a programmer to

support the community. There are many tasks librarians can do for example: reporting

bugs and errors through healthy participation in discussions, forums and mailing list;

writing of manuals and documents; suggestions to the community, etc. The sense of

togetherness and bonding is required for the existence of OSS and this can happen only

through collaboration and communication. There are efforts of some library professionals

who dedicatedly evolve software for the entire library fraternity. If they couldn’t have

done this we would have been deprived from the benefits we are enjoying today by

implementing OSS in our libraries. We have conceptualized the idea of sharing of

resources likewise sharing and co-operating regarding to OSS will allow us to grow and

solve our own problems as far as IT infrastructure is concern. Hence, it is expected from

172



library professionals to use more and more OSS based software in their libraries rather

opting to other software. This could be our contribution to the society, county and the

whole humanity.

**************************

173



REFERENCES

Center for History and New Media. (n.d.). Zotero personal research assistance.

Retrieved May 20, 2016, from zotero: https://www.zotero.org/

CLOCKSS. (2015). CLOCKSS benefits. Retrieved May 30, 2016, from CLOCKSS:

https://www.clockss.org/clockss/Benefits

CMS Matrix. (No date). Drupal . Retrieved May 30, 2016, from CMS Matrix:

http://www.cmsmatrix.org/matrix/cms-matrix/drupal

DHI Group Inc. (2016). Open Source Systems for Libraries. Retrieved May 20, 2016,

from Source Forge: https://sourceforge.net/p/oss4lib/mailman/message/3582731/

DuraSpace. (No date). Fedora key features. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from Fedora

Commons: http://fedora-commons.org/features

Electronics and Computer Science. (2016). EPrints Software. Retrieved May 16, 2016,

from EPrints: http://www.eprints.org/uk/index.php/eprints-software/

Georgia Public Library. (2016). About Evergreen. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from

Evergreen - Open Source Library Software: https://evergreen-ils.org/about-us/

Hage, J., Rademaker, P., & Vugt, N. (2010). A comparison of plagiarism detection tools.

Nitherland: Department of Information and Computing Sciences.

Holly Yu. (2005). Content and Workflow Management for Library Web Sites: Case

Studies. Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

IDG Network. (2016). LibreOffice 5.1: The premier open-source office suite just keeps

getting better. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from PC World:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3031234/software-productivity/libreoffice-51-

features-streamlined-menus-and-remote-server-support.html

Index Data. (No date). Pazpar2. Retrieved May 25, 2016, from Index Data:

http://www.indexdata.com/pazpar2/doc/pazpar2.pdf

Kaashoek , M., Engler, D., & Wallach, D. (1996). Server Operating System. Proceedings

of the SIGOPS European Workshop (pp. 1- 8). Connemara, Ireland: ACM.

McCaughey, J. (2013, April 22). How to get started with WebHuddle. Retrieved May 26,

2016, from WebHuddle: https://www.webhuddle.com/aboutpage.jsp

Media Wiki. (2016, June 6). AppArmor Description. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from

Media Wiki: http://wiki.apparmor.net/index.php/Main_Page

174



Naik, U., & Shivalingaiah, D. (2006). DIGITAL LIBRARY OPEN SOURCE

SOFTWARE : A COMPARATIVE STUDY. 4th International Convention

CALIBER-2006 (pp. 27- 39). Gulbarga: INFLIBNET centre, Ahmedabad.

Public Knowledge Project. (2014). Open Journal Systems. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from

Public Knowledge Project: https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/

Red Hat Inc. (2016). What's New in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. Retrieved May 29,

2016, from Red Hat: https://www.redhat.com/en/files/resources/en-rhel-whats-

new-in-rhel-712030417.pdf

Reddes. (2008). Welcome to ABCD project. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from Reddes:

http://reddes.bvsaude.org/projects/abcd

Scilab. (2015). About Scilab. Retrieved May 22, 2016, from Scilab:

http://www.scilab.org/scilab/about

Scribus. (2016). About Scribus. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from Scribus:

https://www.scribus.net/category/about/

Sourceforge. (2016). Plaggie 1.1. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from Sourceforge:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/plaggie/

Sourceforge. (2016). VLC Media Player. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from Sourceforge:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/vlc/editorial/?source=psp

SUSE. (2016). SUSE AppArmor Features. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from SUSE:

https://www2.suse.com/support/security/apparmor/features/

VA Software. (2016). OpenBiblio. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from sourceforge:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/obiblio/?source=directory

Verus Solutions. (No date). NewGenLib Features. Retrieved Mau 20, 2016, from Verus

Solutions: http://www.verussolutions.biz/web/content/features

Wikipedia. (2015, November 24). EPrints. Retrieved May 16, 2016, from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPrints

Wikipedia. (2015, July 3). ZimDesk. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from Wikipedia:

https://translate.google.co.in/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=https://pt.wikipedia.org/wi

ki/ZimDesk&prev=search

Wikipedia. (2016, January 7). ABCD. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from Wikipedia:

http://wiki.bireme.org/en/index.php/ABCD

175



Wikipedia. (2016, May 31). Drupal. Retrieved June 1, 2016, from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drupal

Wikipedia. (2016, May 18). Evergreen Software. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_(software)

Wikipedia. (2016, March 11). OpenBiblio. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBiblio

Wikipedia. (2016, June 9). Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Retrieved May 25, 2016, from

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux

Wikipedia. (2016, April 27). Scilab. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scilab

Wikipedia. (2016, June 8). Wordpress. Retrieved June 10, 2016, from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPress

Yuvraj Mayank, & Singh, A. (2013, Jan - Mar). Open Source Cloud Computing Software

and Solutions for libraries. International Journal of Information Dissemination

and Technology, 3(1), 42-48.

176

CHAPTER VI

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL INITIATIVES

AND GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES FOR OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE

Sr. No. Title Page No


6.2 Open Source Software (OSS) Survey Agencies 177

6.3 National Organizations Open Source Software Initiative 182

6.4 International Organizations Open Source Software Initiative 189

6.5 National And International Open Source Software Government Strategies And Policies

192

Summary 204

References 206

CHAPTER VI NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL INITIATIVES AND GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES FOR OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE

6.1. INTRODUCTION

“Free Software” means software that respects user’s freedom. It means that users are free

to run programs as they wish; free to study and change the software; free to redistribute

copies to others and free to publish modified versions. As a consequence, users are free to

share and form communities to exercise effective control over the software they use.

“Open Source” means access to the source code which is written in a programming

language that makes working software program. Some users refer to this as “Open

Source.” Free and OSS (FOSS) has grown incredibly in the past few years. Considering

Free and OSS (FOSS) features national and international governments are picking the

best technology based on cost and performance to boost their economy. Many

organizations in collaboration are supporting OSS to make inroads in government

managed offices and in educational sectors. Governments of many countries are spending

billions of dollars to purchase IT infrastructure from other countries and to save their

foreign exchange they are making strategies and policies to groom OSS. This will not

only cut their budget on IT but also by adopting OSS help give rise to their countries

talent in IT sector.

6.2. OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE SURVEY AGENCIES

OSS survey agencies are formed to arrive to develop innovative, unbiased and balanced

solutions to the most complex problems of our time on diverse issues. Governments don’t

have any choice either to rely on certain agencies results or appoint a committee of

experts before taking any decision with matters related to the well-being of citizens and

the nation. Every country struggles as to introduce new ideas to advance policies that

guide and strengthen the countries-politically, technologically, economically and socially.

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is one such agency that came into

existence after the cold war in 1962. This was formed to find ways to the United States of

America to prosper as a nation. Since inception, it is proving solutions to complex

problems related to policy making and security. Another such agency is called

177


Chapter 6: National & International Organizational Initiatives & Government Strategies for OSS

‘CENATIC’ is the “Spanish National Research Center for the application of Information

Technology and Communication based on OSS. It is a strategic project of the

Government of Spain to promote understanding in the use of OSS in all areas of the

society, with special attention to public administration, business, and development

communities.” (OSI Welcomes Debian and CENATIC, 2012)

Following are the detailed insights about CENATIC and CSIS.

6.2.1. Centro Nacional de Referencia de Aplicación de las Tecnologías de Información y la Comunicación basadas en Fuentes Abiertas (CENATIC) “CENATIC stands for the National Competency Centre for the application of open

source technologies (Centro Nacional de Referencia de Aplicación de las Tecnologías de

Información y la Comunicaciónbasadas en Fuentes Abiertas). CENATIC is a strategic

project of the Spanish Government which aims at promoting awareness and use of free

OSS (F/OSS) with a focus on public administration, business, providers and / or user of

free technologies and development of communities. The project is being funded by the

Spanish Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce under its National Program of

Services Technologies for the Information Society since 2006 to 2012, and by regional

governments of Extremadura, Andalusia, Asturias, Aragon, Cantabria, Galicia, Catalonia

and the Balearic Islands. Atos Origin, Gpex and Telefonica also form part in the Board of

Directors of CENATIC. CENATIC results from a commitment to technology, as

endorsed by the Spanish legislation, which establishes measures for promoting sharing,

reuse and collaboration between public administration technology projects. The objective

is to increase efficiency in the use of public resources, as well as the quality and safety of

public administration projects.” (CENATIC, 2016)

CENATIC has published a ‘Report on International Status of OSS 2010’. The aim of this

research is to enhance Spanish business sector by providing information about

opportunities offered by these technologies and identifying international projects. A

thorough overview of International OSS status will help build powerful communities and

developers and to improve the current situation in Spain in public and private sectors and

universities at large.

178



The following figure 6.1 depicts that “Countries with the strongest economies

demonstrate a high level of both Information Society and the use of OSS. North America,

Western Europe and Australia belong to this category. Africa, Latin America and Eastern

Europe are found at the opposite end of the spectrum, with their countries registering low

Information Society and OSS development indices. The United States, Australia, and

Western European countries lead the development and adoption of OSS. The level of

OSS adoption and development in India, China and Brazil is higher than expected,

considering their level of Information Society advancement. In North America, the

United States stands out as the world's leading Information Society, in both the public

and private sectors.” (ONSFA & CENATIC, 2010)

Figure 6.1: Overview of the extent of Open Source Software development around the world

Source:

(http://observatorio.cenatic.es/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=666:rep

ort%ADon%ADthe%ADinternational%ADstatus%ADof%ADop1/1)

179



6.2.2. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

“The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is one of the world’s pre-

eminent international policy institutions focused on defense and security; regional

stability and transnational challenges ranging from energy and climate to global

development and economic integration. Mr.Thomas J. Pritzker was named Chairman of

the CSIS Board of Trustees in 2015.” (Pritzker T. , 2016) “Center for Strategic and

International Studies (CSIS) is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington,

DC. The center’s 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars conduct

research and analysis and develop policy initiatives that look into the future and

anticipate change.” (Pritzker T. J., 2016). “This is the seventh update to the CSIS Open

Source Policy survey. The survey tracks governmental policies on the use of OSS as

reported in the press or other media. The center also looked at whether an initiative was

made at national, regional or local level, and whether it was accepted, under

consideration or rejected.” (Lewis, 2010). The survey is presented in a tabular format and

shows the name of the Government, Branch or Agency engaged, Type of Action

(Advisory, Preference, Research and Development or Mandatory), Date, Status and

Details and Sources from where the information gathered. At the end, the list of

references is mentioned.

Table 6.1: Open Source Software (OSS) Initiatives Continental Distribution

(Source: http://csis.org/files/publication/100416_Open_Source_Policies.pdf)

Continents Approved Proposed Failed Total Value PC Value PC Value PC Europe 126 77% 27 17% 10 6% 163 Asia 59 36% 20 12% 2 1% 81 Latin America 31 19% 15 9% 11 7% 57 North America 16 10% 11 7% 10 6% 37 Africa 8 5% 1 1% 0 0% 9 Middle East 5 3% 2 1% 0 0% 7 Total 254 156% 76 47% 33 20% 354

180



Figure 6.2: Regional Distribution

Table - 6.1 shows that European countries (Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Norway,

United Kingdom, Finland, Denmark, Holland) stands top among other continents where

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) recorded one hundred and sixty-

three (163) OSS initiatives. The percentage of ‘Approved Initiatives’ is (77%),

‘Proposed’ (17%) and ‘Failed’ (6%). The second highest is Asia (India, China, South

Korea and Japan) where out of eighty-one (81) OSS initiatives 36% are ‘Approved’,

(12%) ‘Proposed’ and (1%) is ‘Failed’. The third highest continent is Latin America

(Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Venezuela) where out of fifty-seven (57) OSS initiatives

(19%) are ‘Approved’, (9%) ‘Proposed’ and (7%) ‘Failed’.

Table 6.2: Percentage of Comparison of Approved Initiatives 2001 to 2009

(Source: http://csis.org/files/publication/100416_Open_Source_Policies.pdf)

Level of OSS Initiatives

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

% Advisory 63.6 39.1 24.6 27.7 23.3 20.0 24.0 35.0 25.0

% Preference 18.2 39.1 42.1 29.8 40.0 26.7 20.0 15.0 25.0

% R & D 18.2 21.7 33.3 34.0 36.7 40.0 32.0 35.0 43.8

% Mandatory 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 13.3 24.0 15.0 6.3

0 50 100 150 200

Europe

Asia

Latin America

North America

Africa

Middle East

Total

Failed

Proposed

Approved

181



Figure 6.3: Percentage of Open Source Software (OSS) Initiative by Time

“The data in this report provides a snapshot of the current state of government open source

policy. OSS policies have been divided into four categories: research, mandates (where the

use of OSS is required), preferences (where the use of OSS is given preference, but not

mandated) and advisory (where the use of OSS is permitted).” (Lewis, 2010).The table 6.2

shows that advisory initiative of OSS is high (63.6%) opening and indicates that initially all

the nations took serious note of OSS and at a later stage a decline was noted. The preference

stage of OSS shows many ups and downs only in the year 2003 where it reached 42.1%. In

the research and development field, OSS initiative shows a gradual beginning in the year

2001 (18.2%). Slowly every year it progressed and in the year 2009 reached to 43.8%. It

indicates that OSS is mostly used for research and development purpose. The mandatory

(where the use of OSS is must) use of OSS is only felt in the year 2007 (24%) shows that

national and international countries yet to implement OSS wherever they can easily

replace by proprietary software.

6.3. NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE INITIATIVE In India there are many incidences for the entry of OSS. In the year 2001 in a conference

at Thiruvananthapuram- Kerala, Richard Stallman inaugurated the ‘Free Software

Foundation of India (FSF-India). It is an official affiliation with ‘Free Software

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

% Advisory

% Preference

% R & D

% Mandatory

182



Foundation’. National Resource Center for Free & OSS (NRCFOSS). It was set up in

Chennai in April 2005. National Knowledge Commission’s recommendation on Open

Source and Open Access came to light on 13 June 2005. IBM Corporation, in partnership

with Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT-B) and the Center for Development of

Advanced Computing (C-DAC), has established OSS Resource Center (OSSRC) on 6th

October 2004.INFLIBNET has established working group on OSS

Department of Electronics & Information Technology (DeitY)

Free Software Foundation of India (FSF-India)

National Resource Center for Free & OSS (NRCFOSS)

National Knowledge Commission (NKC)

OSS Resource Center (OSSRC)

INFLIBNET Open Source Working Group

6.3.1. Department of Electronics & Information Technology (DeitY) FOSS Initiative Department of Electronics & Information Technology (DeitY), Ministry of

Communication and Information Technology, Government of India established ‘Free and

OSS (FOSS) cell with the vision that “ Creating and enhancing value using Free and OSS

within the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) framework for providing

efficient, economical, secured and quality services.” Major Free and OSS (FOSS)

initiative, ongoing research and development projects and FOSS product are given on the

official website of DeitY.” (DeitY, 2016).

Following are the FOSS projects:

1. “BOSS – It is called Indian version of GNU/Linux, it comes along with LibreOffice,

GIMP, Orca, Iceweasel, Evolution, etc.

2. EduBOSS – Is the educational variant of BOSS Linux operating system, games, paint

and graphic tools.

3. BOSS Server – Is a lightweight server of Debian-based GNU/Linux, designed for

hosting web server, proxy server, mail server, network server, database server, file

and print server, virtualization server, etc.

183



4. Meghdoot – Free and OSS cloud suite.

5. Swar-Suchak – An open source voice enabled information retrieval system in multiple

languages.

6. GEM – GEstures with Mouse (GEM) provide an input mechanism, developed for

Linux desktop, uses gestures to give input to the system.

7. Anumaan – Anumaan is an open source, on-screen predictive text entry system to aid

people with motor disabilities.

8. ALViC – Linux based for visually challenged is a software for differently-abled

people.

9. Creative Computing @ Schools – An educational e-journal for CBSE to share

educational academic experience by teachers and students’ state-of-the-art ideas.

10. ILMS – Integrated Library Management System (ILMS) useful for library automation

Koha is integrated with Digital Library OSS DSpace.”

Above are the projects initiated by government of India and are mostly useful for

academic institutions. The effectiveness of these projects is only depending on its

implementations in academic institutions. The researcher hopes that it will be accepted in

Indian conditions.

6.3.2. Free Software Foundation Of India (FSF-India) Initiative

Richard Stallman in 1985 formed the ‘Free Software Foundation’ (FSF) to support

the free software movement, which promotes universal freedom to study, distribute,

create and modify computer software. In the year 2001 in a conference at

Thiruvananthapuram- Kerala, Richard Stallman inaugurated the ‘Free Software

Foundation of India (FSF-India). It was an official affiliation with ‘Free Software

Foundation’. It works as the national agency for the promotion of the use of free software

under the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL). (Nagarjuna, 2013)“Broadly, FSF

India will strive to ensure that free software is strengthened in all respects so as to form a

genuine, credible and viable alternative to proprietary software for every kind of

application. To do so, FSF India will:

184

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_software



“Promote awareness about free software among the general public and specifically,

among programmers and students.

Increase access to free software by users in India.

Promote development of local solutions to local problems by empowering local

programmers in the use of free platforms, tools, and technologies.

Provide support to free software by way of documentation, expert help or any other

means.

Help organize training for programmers and users of free software platforms and

software.

Carry out research and development work for free software solutions to suit local

requirements.

Provide services for free software programmer community by, for example, locating

and distributing jobs.

Assist National and State governments in all aspects relating to free software, such as

evolving and maintaining standards; providing a quality assurance mechanism for

free software and ensuring the use of free software in government and quasi-

government milieu.

Provide services such as adjudication and conflict redressal within free software

domain.”

6.3.3. National Resource Center for Free and Open Source Software (NRCFOSS) Initiative

National Resource Centre for Free and OSS (NRCFOSS) was established in Chennai in

April 2005 by the Department of Information, Ministry of Communication and

Information Technology, Government of India with the sole intention to bridge the gap of

the digital divide and reinforcing the Indian Software Industry. It was the decision of

experts committee to develop an Indian version of Linux in different languages of India

named as BOSS (Bharat Operating System Solutions). “Currently BOSS GNU/Linux

Desktop supports all the Official Indian Languages such as Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati,

Hindi, Kannada, Malayalam, Marathi, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, Bodo,

Urdu, Kashmiri, Maithili, Konkani, Manipuri which will enable the mainly non-English

185



literate users in the country to be exposed to ICT and to use the computer more

effectively” (C-DAC, 2016).“The objectives of the National Resource Centre for Free

and OSS (NRCFOSS, 2011) are mentioned below:

Accepts education research and development in the field of OSS.

Strive to support OSS and its calibration actions universally by way of collaborating

with different government supported OSS organiztions.

Boost the use of open standards for document interchange and portal in government

departments.

Provides consultancy and authorization services to academic, industries and

government.

Motivate the use of GNU/Linux and other FOSS tools in academic, industries and

government.

Shows interoperability between various FOSS tools and applications.

Appliance of e-Governance projects using Free and Open Source Software (FOSS).

Application of FOSS tools in academic domain.

Organization of lectures, seminars, conferences, workshops, exhibitions and similar

marketing activities related to F/OSS development.

ICT and electronic courseware expansion and certification for prevalent online

learning and teaching.

Creating centers of quality in mobile platforms using OSS.

Further accompaniments and enrichments to BOSS Linux specific to education &

scientific field.”

6.3.4. National Knowledge Commission Open Source Software Initiative

The National Knowledge Commission of India (NKC), constituted a high-level advisory

body on 13th June 2005, by the Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh, under the

chairmanship of Mr. Sam Pitroda to submit guide policy and recommendations to

transform India into vibrant knowledge base society. It is actually a compilation of

reports from 2006-2009. The knowledge commission has made the following

recommendation on the use of OSS (Pitroda, 2009).

186



“Promote Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

Applications in All Libraries: The catalogs of all libraries should be put on

local, state and national websites with necessary linkages. This will enable

networking of different types of libraries and set up of National Repository of

Bibliographic Records and a centralized collaborative virtual inquiry handling

system using the latest ICT for enable equitable and universal access for

knowledge resources, libraries should be encouraged to create more digital

resources by digitizing relevant reading material in different languages, which

can be shared at all levels. Peer-reviewed research papers resulting from

publicly funded research should also be made available through open access

channels, subject to copyright regulations. It is recommended that open

standards, free, OSS may be used for the above.

Teaching Aids: With the advent of new technology there is a need to develop better

teaching aids to make classrooms livelier. There is an array of open source material and

ICT aided tools, which can make classroom transactions in math and science more

engaging and participatory.

OSS for e-Governance: Because of the enormous size and scope of e-Governance

efforts in India and because of the availability of globally recognized software talent of

Indians; we must actively encourage OSS implementations and open standards wherever

possible. This will allow us to have cost-effective solutions and help develop open

software products and standards.

Health Information Network: The country needs to develop a web-based network,

connecting all healthcare establishments, in both private and public sector. When fully

functional, all health care transactions will be recorded electronically and this data will be

available in the health data vault to authorized users, when they need it and where they

need it. For this purpose, a common Electronic Health Record (EHR) based on Open

Source solutions need to be created and disseminated widely.

Indian Institute of Library and Information Science: Keeping this in view, it is felt

that a national institute for advanced training and R&D (suggested name: Indian Institute

of Library and Information Science) need to be set up. The proposed Institute would have

two major functions.

187



A. To offer training programs in relevant areas and to conduct continuing education

programs (including training of trainers) for library and information

professionalism.

B. To identify, sponsor and conduct R&D programs in the field of library and

information science, including newly emerging research areas. Among the areas

needing immediate research and development, OSS working group is a notable

initiative.

Infrastructure requirements for cataloging, database creation and networking:

A. OSS should be used wherever possible at present and eventually at all levels.

B. Open source web-enabled library management software should be developed if

necessary and provided to all public libraries for facilitating networking. This

software should support multiple Indian language scripts and dialects.

Networking of Public Libraries: The networking agencies should ensure state-of-the-art

technology with the following features:

A. Open source platform for software, which also supports multi-lingual

environment with multi-user and multimedia content creation capabilities.

B. Storage, dissemination and replication of the data through mirror sites, gateways,

portals and inter-library loan facilities.

C. Capability to conduct exhaustive training programs.”

6.3.5. INFLIBNET Open Source Software Initiative

INFLIBNET has set-up an OSS working group with the following objectives:

It will test and experiment various OSS and do customization.

Impart training on the implementation of library related OSS.

It will help and support universities and academic institutions for the

implementation of OSS.

It will engage is spreading the philosophy of Free and OSS (FOSS).

“The center has created research and development facilities to study and contribute

actively to the open source movement. Moreover, the center has taken a cautious decision

to move all its crucial operations to OSS. To begin with, Open Office was implemented

in place of MS Office in the Centre. Open Source Laboratory was set-up at the center

188



with PCs loaded with different versions of LINUX operating systems including Redhat,

Fedora, Ubuntu, etc. and Library Management Software like NewGenLib and Koha were

installed. DSpace, EPrintArchives, and Greenstone Digital Library Software are also

installed for testing and developing a digital library for various applications at the center.

All the union databases of INFLIBNET Centre that were earlier hosted on MS-SQL have

been moved to MySQL, open source relational database management software. All the

websites of INFLIBNET Centre including UGC-INFONET Digital Library Consortium,

SOUL, IndCat, N-LIST, OJAS, etc. are designed using OSS such as Apache, MySQL,

Tomcat, PHP, JavaScript, PERL, etc. The ingestion interface for “ShodhGanga”, setup

using DSpace, was custom-developed using open source tools to facilitate online

submission of electronic theses into repository.” (INFLIBNET, 2016)

6.4. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE INITIATIVE OSS is not restricted to any boundary it is a world phenomenon Its importance and

necessity is felt by leading national and international organizations so that it could be

groomed and used as a tool for the interest of the general public. People of the world have

the right to use ICT and it is the enabler in pursuit of poverty alleviation and wealth

creation in developed and developing countries alike.

Various working groups and special task force were formed to access the potential of

OSS. Many experts shell their views on OSS and submit their recommendations.

Following the few international organizations initiative for OSS:

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO)

International Open Source Network (IOSN)

United Nations Development Program (UNDP)

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)

working group on OSS

189



6.4.1. UNESCO Open Source Software Initiative

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) have been

developing marvelous software for the benefit of the underprivileged states. CDS/ISIS is

a free software for library automation developed by UNESCO -WINISIS, WEBLIS, J-

ISIS, and recently “ABCD stands for "Automatización de Bibliotecas y Centros de

Documentación" (Spanish), which means: Library and Documentation Centers

Automation. Its development was promoted and coordinated by BIREME, with the

support of VLIR” (Edgewall, 2008). UNESCO’s FOSS (Free/OSS) portal was launched

in 2001 making the source code ‘open’ in principle. With Free and OSS (FOSS) model,

one can create, share and exploit software.

“UNESCO recognizes that (UNESCO, 2016):

• “Software plays a crucial role in the access to information and knowledge.

• Different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free

software, have many possibilities to increase competition, access by users,

diversity of choice and to enable all users to develop solutions which best

meets their requirements.

• The development and use of open, interoperable, non-discriminatory

standards for information handling and access are important elements in the

development of effective info structure.

• The community approaches software development has a great potential to

contribute to operationalize the concept of Knowledge Societies.

• The Free and OSS (FOSS) model provides interesting tools and processes

with which people can create, exchange, share and exploit software and

knowledge efficiently and effectively.

• FOSS can play an important role as a practical instrument for development as

its free and open aspirations makes it a natural component of development

efforts in the context of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

• Consistent support plays an important role in the success and sustainability of

FOSS solutions.

• All software choices should be based upon the solution's ability to achieve the

best overall return on technology investments.”

190

http://www.bireme.br/php/index.php?lang=en

http://www.vliruos.be/intro.php



6.4.2. International Open Source Network (IOSN)

“The International Open Source Network (IOSN) is a Center of Excellence for free and

OSS (FOSS), open content and open standards in the Asia-Pacific region. Through three

centers of excellence – IOSN ASEAN+3, IOSN PIC (Pacific Island Countries) and IOSN

South Asia, based in Manila, Suva and Chennai respectively, the IOSN is tasked

specifically to facilitate and network FOSS advocates and human resources in the region.

The vision is that developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region can achieve rapid and

sustained economic and social development by using affordable yet effective FOSS ICT

solutions to bridge the digital divide.” (APCICT, 2013)

6.4.3. United Nation’s Development Program (UNDP)

“United Nations Development Program’s Asia-Pacific Development Information

Program (UNDP’s- APDIP), Software Freedom for All (SFA) aim is to provide support

and assistance in the Asia Pacific Region. Through the IOSN/SFA initiative, UNDP

provides policy support and advisory services to government, non-profit organizations,

donor agencies and others. It publishes practical tools and materials, live CDs of the

GNU/Linux operating system for FOSS practitioners and end users. It also supports

FOSS R&D activities in localization and in other areas and organize conferences and

training programs to network stakeholders and strengthen local capacities. It welcomes

both those interested in benefiting from these services and those who would like to

collaborate in extending them.” (Hoe, 2006)

6.4.4. IFLA Working Group on Open Source Software

The IFLA IT Section has established a working group on Open Source. The role of this

group will be to foster support and develop open source systems for libraries (IFLA,

IFLA Open Source Working Group, 2014). In Milan 22nd August 2009 a standing

committee meeting was organized and an OSS working group was formed under Edmund

Balnaves. “The Milan meeting examined ways in which the standing committee would

engage with open source initiatives. These actions centered on two areas:

1. “Direct activities of the IFLA IT section in promoting standards in open source

and publicizing open source frameworks for libraries.

191



2. Working with other agencies actively involved in open source to encourage

regional support initiatives for open source, recommend projects that facilitate the

adoption of open source and work with UN/UNESCO and EIFL-Net in their open

source initiatives.” (IFLA, Open Source, 2009)

6.5. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES AND POLICIES In software industry it is very rare to see that whosoever is developing software will hand

over the source code, simply it will reveal the inner details of that software. The efforts of

the person who developed the software will go in vain, there will not be any vigilance

over that software and it could be further re-modified and distributed to gain a financial

edge. Irrespective of the above dilemma Open Source community is developing software

with certain usage terms more specified by the Open Source Initiative. Taking this

advantage various national and international governments are formulating an OSS policy

for their nation. Most certainly they wanted to save their imports, foreign exchange and

their economy will boost by producing in-house software which they generally buy from

other nations. It will be an opportunity for young budding developers of the nation to

exhibit their talent. Every country has to establish ICT infrastructure and they spent

millions of their revenue in procurement. Since there is already exist an IT infrastructure

and there is no harm to switch over. The OSS government policy will help to develop

local industry, enhance national security, reduce copyright infringement, increases

competition, reduce local cost of ownership, and increase professional expertise.

Following are some of the national and international initiatives taken for use and

promotion of Open Source Software (OSS) policy.

6.5.1. India

There is no specific legislation in India for the adoption of OSS. Although attempts have

been made in the past through Free Software Foundation of India, submitted an opinion

in the year 2003 under section (87) and subsection (2) of Government of India’s

Information Technology Act 2000 to the department of Information and Communication

192



Technology. It was as late as 2014 Ministry of Communication & Information

Technology, Department of Electronics and Information Technology vide his notification

(F. No. 1 (3)/ 2014 – EG-II ) made an OSS policy entitled “Policy on Adoption of OSS

for Government of India (DeitY, 2016).” FOSS (Free and OSS) cell of Department of

Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY) announced major initiatives and

products in the area of Free and OSS (FOSS). One of the products is ILMS (Integrated

Library Management Systems) is the OSS for the management of any budget constrained

library with comprehensive functionality and successful integration of Koha and DSpace.

Following the vision and mission mention on the website of DeitY

(http://deity.gov.in/content/free-and-open-source-software).

Table 6.3 “FOSS Projects under ITEA Division, R&D in IT Group” Source: http://deity.gov.in/content/list-rd-projects

Sr.No Project/ Scheme Implementing Agency Status

1 NRC FOSS C-DAC Chennai and AU KBC Research Centre, Anna University, Chennai

Completed

2 Establishment of BOSS Support Centres & Business Development

C-DAC Chennai Completed

3 NRCFOSS Phase-II

C-DAC (Chennai, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Delhi), IIT-M, IIT-B, AU-DBC Chennai

Completed

4 Establishment of BOSS Support Centres & Business Development: Phase-II

C-DAC Chennai Ongoing

5 CBSE Trainers Training & Students Talent Transformation

C-DAC (Chennai, Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi) Completed

6

Computer Enabled Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) using Adaptive Learning Technologies

C-DAC, Mumbai & Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kerala.

Completed

7 Localization and Hardware Interfacing for Android / BOSS based devices

ICFOSS, Kerala and C-DAC, Chennai & Delhi Completed

8 Bharati-Sim: An advanced Micro-Architectural Simulator IIT Delhi Ongoing

193



9 Self-Aware Service Oriented Component-based Operating System

IIT-Madras, C-DAC, Chennai, Hyderabad and Delhi

Ongoing

10 Foundation of Trusted and Scalable Last Mile Healthcare, Indo-US Joint R&D Project

IIT-Delhi, AIIMS, Delhi , C-DAC, Chennai, Dartmouth College & Rice University, USA

Ongoing

11

Pervasive Sensing and Computing Technologies for Energy and Water Sustainability in Buildings, Indo-US joint R&D Project

IIT-Delhi, C-DAC, Chennai & UCLA, USA Ongoing

12

Designing a Smarter and Greener Electric Grid : A Sensor Data Driven Approach – Indo-US joint R&D Project

IIT-Mumbai, C-DAC Mumbai and C-DAC Thiruvananthapuram & UMASS, USA

Ongoing

Figure: 6.4 FOSS Vision (Source: http://deity.gov.in/content/list-rd-projects)

“Mission” • “Research & Development in the area of FOSS”. • “Deployment of FOSS tools & technologies”. • “Training & Support”. • “Human Resource Development”.

194



6.5.2. Australia

“In January 2011, the Australian Government released a policy (AGIMO Circular

2010/004 released in January 2011) (Government of Australia, A Guide to Open Source

Software, 2014)requiring agencies to consider OSS for all software procurements. The

OSS Policy, which is available from the Department of Finance and Deregulation

website, will apply to any ICT procurement activity initiated after 1 March 2011. The

OSS Policy requires agencies to consider OSS in relation to any approach to the market

to acquire software. This includes the approaches to the market for new services but only

where the approach specifically details to the software.” ( Government of Australia,

Australian Government Policy on Open Source Software, 2014). The policy aims

agencies to comply with three core principles.

“Principle 1: Australian Government ICT procurement processes must actively and

fairly consider all types of available software:

Procurement decisions should take into account total cost of ownership,

competence, safety, scalability, transferability, support and necessities.

In procurement plan (over $80K) agencies need to consider OSS alongside

proprietary software.

Tenders will be evaluated under Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines.

Principle 2: Suppliers must consider all types of available software while dealing with

Australian Government agencies:

It is mandatory in case of dealing with the Australian Government to consider all

types of software including and not limited to OSS and Proprietary software.

Exclusion of OSS suppliers should have to be given the justification.

Principle 3: Australian Government agencies will actively participate in OSS

communities and contribute back where appropriate:

Through Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO),

Australian Government Agencies will engage in global best practices and other

countries and organizations as far as OSS is concerned.”

195



6.5.3. Brazil

Brazilian President LuizInacio Lula da Silva strongly supports OSS to ensure that

Brazilians may become technically skillful without incurring the "economically

unsustainable.” The country has mandated the use of OSS in every village and

municipality. The implementation of OSS helps to bridge digital divide being less

expensive than Microsoft. “Brazil has introduced technology and software use in every

aspect of its functioning. It had been importing about $1.2 billion worth of software from

Microsoft, but through aggressive legislation to push through OSS, the Government

proposes to reduce its expenditure through replacing Microsoft's computers with 500,000

Government and school computers with Linux. The Tele center Project commenced in

Sao Paolo, Brazil provides free internet access and computer use to 128 poor

neighborhoods using Debian Linux and Linux Terminal servers. The Brazilian

Government has also initiated several proposals for introducing OSS at various

government levels. As a preliminary move, the government has beefed up its research

and development into OSS and its applications through an agreement signed with Linux

systems. Training and support systems have been introduced in order to disseminate

information and knowledge on the operation of OSS systems through the CDTC

(Technology and Knowledge Dissemination Centre).” (Oghre, 2005)

“The government says it plans to complement the PC ‘Conectado’ program with

stepped-up efforts to put more computers into schools. It is also investing $74 million to

open 1,000 community centers in poor neighborhoods by year-end with computers that

run free software programs and offer free Internet access - supplementing similar

programs by local governments and nongovernmental organizations. "For this program to

be viable, it has to be with free software," said Sérgio Amadeu, the president of Brazil's

National Institute of Information Technology (NIIT), the agency that oversees the

government's technological initiatives. "We're not going to spend taxpayers' money on a

program so that Microsoft can further consolidate its monopoly. It's the government's

responsibility to ensure that there is competition and that means giving alternative

software platforms a chance to prosper.” (Benson, 2005)

196



“One initiative in the Brazilian government is an OSS portal

(http://www.softwarepublico.gov.br.) maintained by the Ministry of Planning, Budget,

and Management. Created in 2007, the portal offers OSS programs developed by

government bodies and hosts communities so that citizens, companies and public

administrations can have access to a great variety of software. Everything on the portal is

produced and made available according to the standards ruled by the normative

instruction (N.1), a legal document based strongly on FSF (http://www.fsf.org/) rules and

a free license model created specifically for the portal. The portal now has 59 available

software programs (http://www.softwarepublico.gov.br/ListaSoftwares) and the list keeps

growing.” (Muller, 2012)

6.5.4. France

The French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault on 19thSeptember 2012 wrote a letter and

signed guidelines and recommendation for the use of OSS in the administration. He urges

his country and ministers to review free alternatives while constructing ICT infrastructure

and applications. The savings saved on using OSS could be utilized in creating more

expertise and development of communities. The attached letter along with the

recommendations states that OSS is aimed to give the user freedom of use, modification

and distributions rights including applications, databases, server operating systems, office

suites and social networking. The main contentions of the recommendations are as

follows (Lallorge, 2012):

Free software should be considered to meet the business needs.

Free software is a matter of pride and revolution in the information technology

setup.

The model of software guarantee

• “Freedom to run the program

• Freedom to study how the program works and adapts it

• Freedom to redistribute copies of the program

• To improve the program and distribute the improvements to the public”

OSS is self-sustaining, copyleft and community control based.

OSS is good for creativity.

197



Several licenses were defined GPL, BSD and Apache.

Free software in French Law CEA CNRS INRIA Free Software license

(CECILL).

State Council wide his Case No. 350431 of 30 September 2011 has approved free

solutions while giving services.

Advantages of Free and OSS (FOSS) cheaper, minimizing unnecessary

developments, long-term support, experiments and adaptations, sharing between

public and greater transparency.

Deployment in multiple contexts of the public and the private sector.

Free software users in administration.

Formation of thematic groups and core teams for sustainable efforts for Free and

OSS (FOSS).

Quarterly physical meetings; thematic mailing list; collaborative site and package

distribution sites.

6.5.5. Germany

“The German government is an active user of open source and has implemented policies

that actively support the take-up of OSS. In 2001, the German Parliament ruled that OSS

should be used in federal administration, wherever doing so would cut costs without

compromising standards. The Ministry of Inner Affairs plays a leading role in German

open source policy. It acts as a coordinator and advises public administration within their

open source implementation process. The Ministry of Economy and Technology also

plays a leading role in open source policy – educating companies on the benefits of open

source and encouraging the development of new open source technologies. In 2001, it

published an information brochure on open source for small and medium enterprises.

Price is only one of the factors cited for Germany’s transition to open-source. Raising

security by diversifying the software mix and reducing dependence on a single supplier

are other reasons given.

• German Bundestag uses Linux on its 150 servers

• The police force in Lower Saxony has switched to Linux on 11,000

workstations.

198



• The Ministry of Finance has an Apache/Linux-based intranet system that

supports 15,000 users.” (Thompson, No date)

6.5.6. China

OSS movement was started in China after announcing a combined initiative by China,

Japan, and Korea in 2003 to promote the OSS (Chae & Mchaney, 2006). There are

various reasons behind this movement. China’s piracy rate stayed at 82% for a second

consecutive year after dropping by ten points over the previous three years (Business ,

2013). The finest answer is to offer a low-cost option to the people of China. Secondly,

“Chinese economy has been growing recently; the country’s software industry has

maintained an even more dramatic pace. According to China’s Ministry of Information

Industry (MII) and National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), the revenue of China’s software

industry in 2002 reached $13.3 billion, a 46.5% increase from 2001 and more than 40

times that of 10 years ago.” (Li, Li, & Xia, 2004)

To save the foreign exchange and to cut the import of information technology

infrastructure China wants to introduce the domestic market. Thirdly, there were

reluctance in China to use Microsoft Company’s software because of its US origin. China

wants to end the monopoly of Microsoft and looking for alternative and OSS gave the

opportunity to replace Microsoft. Another reason was Red Flag Linux (Operating

System) have been originated, developed and circulated by Chinese Academy of

Sciences. “There are increasing reports related to open-source software initiatives

undertaken in China for example Open-Source Software Promotion Union (COPU). It

consists of nineteen OSS executives. This think tank meets annually to advise COPU on

promotion, adoption and development of OSS in China. The Chinese Ministry of

Information founded the OSS Promotion Alliance to encourage the development of

China's open-source software industry. In addition, the French Atomic Energy

Commission and the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology agreed to develop a

new low-cost, high-performance open-source software platform. In August 2004, Chinese

software companies Red Flag Software, Beijing Co-Create open-source, Zhongbiao

Software, Wuxi Evermore Software, Kingsoft and Beijing Redflag Chinese 2000 joined

199



forces with IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Intel and Novell, to form the China Open Source

Software Promotion Alliance, China's first OSS organization.” (Pan & Bonk, 2007)

6.5.7. Japan

“Mr. Shunichi Tashiro, the chief officer of Open Software Center at the Japanese

Industrial-Technology Promotion Agency3, introduced Open Source Policy in Japan and

the activity of his department. One example of practical engagement with OSS in Japan is

the standardization of the programming language-Ruby, which is now in screening

process of JIS (Japanese Industrial Standards) and will soon obtain JIS certification

before submission to ISO (International Organization for Standardization) in 2011. This

will encourage the Japanese-created Ruby language to be adopted in e-Government

systems and enterprise environments across the world.” ( Noda, Tansho, & Coughlan,

2010).

“The Japanese government is moving its entire payroll system over to an open-source

platform. The switch is expected to cut operating costs by half. This move follows a

governmental edict that a greater proportion of the $10 billion government IT budget

should be used to procure OSS. This measure was designed to diversify the state IT

software infrastructure, strengthen security and drive down costs by increasing

competition amongst vendors. In response to this announcement, ten leading IT

companies, including Oracle, NEC, IBM, HP, Hitachi and Dell have formed a consortium

to develop and sell open source infrastructure and software to the Japanese market.”

(Thompson, No date)

“In Japan, the government also provided $410,000 to a panel to conduct a study on

government’s Linux adoption Potential low cost of IT products based on OSS. Japanese

companies NEC, NTT DoCoMo and Panasonic Mobile Communications announced that

they teamed up with Motorola, Samsung Electronics and Vodafone to establish a Linux-

based software platform for mobile devices. The Governments of three Northeast Asian

countries (China, Japan and South Korea) created the impetus for continental

collaborations in OSS projects .The CJK open-source alliance has helped to further boost

200



the OSS diffusion in the three countries. The CJK initiative is guided by the Japanese IT

Services Industry Association (JISA), the Chinese Software Industry Association (CSIA)

and the Federation of Korean Information Industries (KFII). The three associations have

over 1,000 corporations as their members, including nearly all major players in the

Japanese and Korean IT industry. These associations have also recommended that

government of each country should widen and deepen OSS adoption. There has been a

division of labor in the CJK partnership. China’s role is to develop PC operating systems;

Japan will concentrate on software development and security and South Korea will

develop software and applications for PDAs.” ( Kshetri & Schiopu, 2007)

6.5.8. The United Kingdom

The Government of United Kingdom on its website published the policy paper for

Government ICT strategy. It mentions that “the Government ICT strategy will enable the

building of a common infrastructure underpinned by a set of common standards. The

government will work to accelerate implementation of the strategy as part of its drive to

cut down costs and improve current capabilities. It will create a level playing field for the

use of innovative ICT solutions and will publish a toolkit for procurers on best practice

for evaluating the use of open source solutions. Secondly, to assist with the deployment

of agile solutions using open source technology, the Government will establish an Open

Source Implementation Group, a System Integrator Forum and an Open Source Advisory

Panel. These will aim to educate, promote and facilitate technical and cultural change

needed to increase the use of open source across government.” (U. K. Government, 2011)

The Government OSS policy is as follows (U.K. Government, 2010):

1. “The Government will actively and fairly consider open source solutions

alongside proprietary ones in making procurement decisions.

2. Procurement decisions will be made on the basis on the best value for money

solution to the business requirement, taking account of total lifetime cost of

ownership of solution, including exit and transition costs, after ensuring that

solutions fulfill minimum and essential capability, security, scalability,

transferability, support and manageability requirements. Where a ‘perpetual

201



license’ has previously been purchased from a proprietary vendor (and therefore

often giving the appearance of a zero cost to a project), a shadow license cost

shall be applied to ensure a fair comparison of total cost of ownership. The

shadow license cost will be equivalent to the published list price of the product

(no discounts can be factored in), or the price the public sector pays overall on a

‘crown’ deal.

3. The Government will expect those putting forward IT solutions to develop

wherever necessary a suitable mix of open source and proprietary products to

ensure that best possible overall solution can be considered. Vendors will be

required to provide evidence of this during a procurement exercise. Where no

evidence exists in a bid the full consideration has been given to open source

products, the bid will be considered non-compliant and is likely to be removed

from the tender process.

4. Where there is no significant overall cost difference between open and non-open

source products, open source will be selected on the basis of its additional

inherent flexibility.”

6.5.9. The United States of America

America stands top among other countries as far as adoption and usage of OSS because it

is the home of multinational software companies like IBM, Microsoft, Sun and Oracle

including Internet giants Google and Yahoo. The world’s most prominent OSS

distribution companies also happen to be from the United States of America e.g. Sun

Microsystems, Red Hat, Novell and other. The adoption of OSS in America began with

the Government’s initiative. It was President’s information technology advisory

committee (PITAC) that submitted a report on OSS for High-End Computing in October

2000. “The report makes three recommendations. First, the Federal government should

aggressively encourage the development of OSS for high-end computing. Adopting this

recommendation will require a technical assessment of the software needs for high-end

computing as well as an innovative management plan and funding model for supporting

this development. Second, a “level playing field” must be created within the government

procurement process to facilitate open source development. Third, an analysis of open

202



source licensing agreements is needed, with an ultimate goal of agreeing upon a single

common licensing agreement for OSS applications.” (PITAC, 2000)

Additionally, NASA’s (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) agreement with

Open Source Initiative (OSI) states that “this open source agreement defines the rights of

use, reproduction, distribution, modification and redistribution of certain computer

software originally released by the United States government as represented by the

government agency is an intended third-party beneficiary of all subsequent distributions

or redistributions of the subject software. Anyone who uses, reproduces, distributes,

modifies or redistributes the subject software, as defined herein, or any part thereof, is, by

that action, accepting in full the responsibilities and obligations contained in this

agreement.” (OSI & NASA, 2003)

“The United States committed to adopt Government-wide OSS policy in its Second Open

Government National Action Plan (NAP) (USA, 2014)that “will support improved access

to custom software code developed for the Federal Government,” emphasizing that using

and contributing back to OSS can fuel innovation, lower costs and benefit the public. In

light of that commitment, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is

accepting public comments on a draft policy to improve the way Custom-Developed

Government code is acquired and distributed moving forward.” (GitHub, 2016) The

access to the draft policy is available at

(https://sourcecode.cio.gov/SourceCodePolicy.pdf)

6.5.10. South Africa

The South African cabinet in the year 2002-2003 adopted OSS policy recommendations

from Government Information Technology Officer’s Council (GITOC). “Two accepted

policy submissions have thus been made to the South African Cabinet on OSS since

2002. The first one titled ‘Open Software and Open Standards in South Africa: A Critical

Issue for Addressing the Digital Divide’ was done by the NACI (Cabinet Memorandum

No. 13 of 2002). The second submission to Cabinet was done by the then Department of

Arts and Culture, Science, and Technology. This submission, which encouraged the

203

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/new_nap_commitments_report_092314.pdf

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/new_nap_commitments_report_092314.pdf

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/



utilization of Free and OSS (FOSS) in government, was a proposed FOSS policy for

Government (Cabinet Memorandum No. 29 of 2003) and was fully backed-up by the

Government Information Technology Officers Council (GITOC).” (Weilbach & Byrne,

May 2009)

“In 2005, a conference was organized to assist with the development of an enhanced

National Open Source Policy and Strategy. A unanimous Conference Declaration was

issued in September 2005, which the GITOC has subsequently taken, assessed and used

as the basis for its recommendation to the cabinet for the following revised FOSS/OC

policy. The revised policy is the following.” (Government of South Africa, 2016)

1. “The South African Government will implement FOSS unless proprietary

software is demonstrated to be significantly superior. Whenever the advantages of

FOSS and proprietary software are comparable FOSS will be implemented when

choosing a software solution for a new project. Whenever FOSS is not

implemented, then reasons must be provided in order to justify the implementation

of proprietary software.

2. The South African Government will migrate current proprietary software to FOSS

whenever comparable software exists.

3. All new software developed for or by the South African Government will be based

on open standards, adherent to FOSS principles, and licensed using a FOSS

license wherever possible.

4. The South African Government will ensure all Government content and a content

developed using Government resource is made Open Content unless analysis on

specific content shows that proprietary licensing or confidentiality is substantially

beneficial.

5. The South African Government will encourage the use of Open Content and Open

Standards within South Africa.”

SUMMARY

National and international organizations like Department of Electronics & Information

Technology (DeitY), Free Software Foundation of India (FSF-India), National Resource

Center for Free & OSS (NRCFOSS), National Knowledge Commission (NKC), OSS

204



Resource Center (OSSRC), INFLIBNET Open Source Working Group, United Nation’s

Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), International Open Source

Network (IOSN), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), International

Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) working group on OSS are

leading organizations and have done a commendable job for the wide spread of OSS. The

initiatives taken by national and international organizations suggest that OSS will

supersede the software domain and one-day making software will be something like

making a toy.

National and international government strategies and role for the adoption of OSS

signifies that any government who is embracing OSS will undoubtedly progress

economically and there will be an all-round development as far as ICT infrastructure is

concerned. The United States, Australia and the European countries (Germany, France,

and United Kingdom) are the front runners in the development and adoption of OSS. The

level of OSS adoption and growth in India, China, Japan and Brazil is greater than

predictable, considering their level of Information Society advancement. Countries with a

higher level of economies exhibit higher level use of OSS. Surprisingly United Kingdom

shows an inferior grade of OSS development because of lesser significance is given by

the government in the early stage of OSS. The United Kingdom’s recent legislation,

policies and development have shown adoption of OSS and definitely their commitment

stands them with other leading countries. The United States of America stands top among

other countries as far as adoption and usage of OSS because it is the home of

multinational software companies like IBM, Microsoft, Sun and Oracle including Internet

giants Google and Yahoo. The world’s most prominent OSS distribution companies also

happen to be from United States of America e.g. Sun Microsystems, Red Hat, Novell and

other. Australian commitment is also outstanding and the credit goes to OSS

communities and developers who participated in international projects generously. South

Africa is the only country among African countries that reaches the value of OSS

adoption only because of the government and non-government organizational support.

********************

205



REFERENCES

APCICT, A. a. (2013). International Open Source Network. Retrieved April 1, 2016,

from United Nation's Economic and Social Commissions for Asia and the Pacific

ESCAP: http://www.unapcict.org/ecohub/resources/international-open-source-

network

Benson, T. (2005, March 29). BRAZIL: Free Software's Biggest and Best Friend.

Retrieved January 28, 2016, from Corp Watch:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12016

Business , S. (2013). Global Software Piracy Study : Fifth Annual BSA and IDC Global

Software Piracy Study. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from BSA : The Software

Alliance: http://globalstudy.bsa.org/2007/studies/2007_global_piracy_study.pdf

CENATIC. (2016, February 18). Retrieved January 8, 2016, from European Commission,

Joinup: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/catalogue/repository/cenatic

C-DAC. (2016, February 10). BOSS GNU/Linux. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from Centre

for Development of Advanced Computing:

http://www.cdac.in/index.aspx?id=st_pr_Boss_gnu_linux

Chae, B., & Mchaney, R. (2006). Asian trio's adoption of linux-based open source

development. Communications of the ACM, 49(9), 95-99.

DeitY. (2016, April 13). Free and Open Source Software. Retrieved January 3, 2016,

from Department Of Electronics & Information Technology, Ministry of

Communications & IT, Government Of India: http://deity.gov.in/content/free-

and-open-source-software

Edgewall. (2008). Welcome to ABCD project. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from RedDes:


GitHub. (2016). Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and

Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software. Retrieved January 7,

2016, from GitHub, Inc. USA, White House Open Source Policy:

https://github.com/WhiteHouse/source-code-policy

Government of Australia. (2014, February 10). Australian Government Policy on Open

Source Software. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from Australian Government

206



Department of Finance: http://www.finance.gov.au/policy-guides-

procurement/open-source-software/

Government of Australia. (2014, February 10). A Guide to Open Source Software.

Retrieved February 24, 2016, from Australian Government Department of

Finance:

http://www.finance.gov.au/files/2012/04/AGuidetoOpenSourceSoftware.pdf

Government of South Africa. (2016). Policy on Free and Open Source Software use for

South African Government. Retrieved January 1, 2016, from South African

Government: http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/foss_policy_0.pdf

Hoe, N. S. (2006). Breaking Barriers The Potential of Free and Open Source Software

for Sustainable Human Development. New Delhi: Elsevier.

IFLA. (2009, December). Open Source. Retrieved December 13, 2015, from IFLA:

http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/information-technology/ifla1-09-dec_its.pdf

IFLA. (2014, April 2). IFLA Open Source Working Group. Retrieved January 20, 2016,

from IFLA: http://www.ifla.org/it/opensource

INFLIBNET. (2016). INFLIBNET at a glance (Brochure). Gandhinagar, Gujarat:

INFLIBNET.

Kshetri, N., & Schiopu, A. (2007, March). Government Policy, Continental Collaboration

and the Diffusion of Open Source Software in China, Japan, and South Korea.

China, Japan, and South Korea, 8(1), 61-77.

Lallorge. (2012, October 3). April. Retrieved November 10, 2015, from Ayrault circular

on the proper use of free software in the: http://www.april.org/print/circulaire-

ayrault-sur-le-bon-usage-des-logiciels-libres-dans-ladministration-francaise

Lewis, J. A. (2010, March). Government Open Source Policies March 2010. Retrieved

January 6, 2016, from Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS):

http://csis.org/files/publication/100416_Open_Source_Policies.pdf

Li, M., Li, Z., & Xia, M. (2004, Winter). Leveraging the Open Source Software

Movement for Development of China’s Software Industry. Information

Technologies and International Development, 2(2), 45-63.

207



Muller, F. (2012, August 15). Discover Open Source World. Retrieved December 12,

2015, from Brazil at forefront of open source initiatives:

https://opensource.com/government/12/8/brazil-forefront-open-source-initiatives

Nagarjuna, G. (2013). Free Software Foundation of India. Retrieved February 10, 2016,

from Free Software Foundation of India: http://fsf.org.in/about-fsf-india/why-we-

exist

Noda, T., Tansho, T., & Coughlan, S. (2010, November). Standing Situations and Issues

of Open Source Policy in East Asian Nations: Outcomes of Open Source

Research Workshop of East Asia. Journal of Economics Memoirs Of The Faculty

Of Law And Literature, Special Issue “Open Source Policy and Promotion of IT

Industries in East Asia”, 37, 1-6.

NRCFOSS. (2011). NRCFOSS Objectives. Retrieved March 5, 2016, from National

Resource Centre fir Free and Open Source Software:

http://www.nrcfoss.org.in/objectives

Oghre, B. (2005). Free" and Open Source Software: A Revolutionary Phenomenon for

Advancement in Developing Countries Like Nigeria. Retrieved February 24, 2016,

from GAMJI: http://www.gamji.com/article5000/NEWS5885.htm

ONSFA, & CENATIC. (2010, December 12). Report on the International Status of Open

Source Software 2010. Retrieved January 14, 2016, from Observatorio Nacional

del Software de Fuentes Abiertas CENATIC:

http://observatorio.cenatic.es/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6

66:report%ADon%ADthe%ADinternational%ADstatus%ADof%ADop1/1

OSI Welcomes Debian and CENATIC. (2012, March 30). Retrieved January 5, 2016,

from Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/node/609

OSI, & NASA. (2003). NASA Open Source Agreement v1.3 (NASA-1.3). Retrieved

January 15, 2016, from Open Source Initiative and NASA:

https://opensource.org/licenses/NASA-1.3 and

http://www.nasa.gov/open/plan/open-source-development_prt.htm

Pan , G., & Bonk, C. (2007, March). The Emergence of Open-Source Software in China.

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(1), 1-18.

208



PITAC. (2000, October). Developing Open Source Software for High End Computing

(President's Information Technology Advisory Committee). Retrieved February 2,

2016, from Networking and Information Technology Research and Development

(NITRD) USA: https://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/pitac/pres-oss-11sep00.pdf

Pitroda, S. (2009, March). National Knowledge Commission Reports. Retrieved March

15, 2016, from NKC reports, Libraries Gateways to Knowledge and NKC Report

to the nation 2006-2009: http://knowledgecommissionarchive.nic.in/default.asp

Pritzker, T. (2016). Government Open Source Policies. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Strategic Insights and

Bipartisan Policy Solutions.: http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-

policies

Pritzker, T. J. (2016). 2012 Annual Report. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from Center for

Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Strategic Insights and Bipartisan Policy

Solutions.: http://csis.org/files/publication/130807_annualreport_finalPDF-

sm5.pdf

Thompson, M. (No date). Open Source, Open Standards: Reforming IT procurement in

Government. England: Judge Business School, Cambridge University.

U. K. Government. (2011, March 30). Policy Paper Government ICT strategy. Retrieved

January 5, 2016, from Government of United Kingdom:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85

968/uk-government-government-ict-strategy_0.pdf

U.K. Government. (2010, January 27). Policy paper Open source, open standards and re-

use: government action plan. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from Government of

United Kingdom:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61

962/open_source.pdf

UNESCO. (2016). Communication and Information FOSS. Retrieved March 12, 2016,

from UNESCO: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-

information/access-to-knowledge/free-and-open-source-software-foss/browse/2/

USA. (2014, September). The Open Government Partnership Announcing New Open

Government Initiatives as part of the Second Open Government National Action

209



Plan for the United States of America. Retrieved January 8, 2016, from White

House:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/new_nap_commit

ments_report_092314.pdf

Weilbach, L., & Byrne, E. (May 2009). Aligning National Policy Imperatives With

Internal Information Systems Innovations: A Case Study Of An Open Source

Enterprise Content Management System In The South African Public Sector.

Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Social Implications of

Computers in Developing Countries, (pp. 1-16). Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

210

CHAPTER VII

DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION


Introduction 211


Part - 1 General Information Based Common Questions 212

Part - 2 Library Automation and Software Selection 216

Part – 3 Libraries using Commercial, In-house Developed, Customized, Freeware, Shareware and Public Domain Software

276

Part – 4 Libraries using Open Source Software (OSS) 287

Part – 5 Libraries using both Open Source Software and Commercial, In-house Developed, Customized, Freeware, Shareware and Public Domain Software

315

CHAPTER VII DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

INTRODUCTION

When information is presented in tabular form or in a descriptive record, it becomes

difficult to draw results. Graphical form makes it possible to easily draw visual

impressions of data. The graphic method of the representation of data enhances our

understanding. It makes comparisons easy. Similarly, when data are presented pictorially

(or graphically) before learners, it makes the presentation eye-catching and more

intelligible. Learners can easily see salient features of the data and interpret. There are

many technological means available to interpret data accurately with many advanced

features. One such mean is ‘Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). It is Windows

based platform which was acquired by IBM in 2009 and named as ‘IBM SPSS Statistics’.

Following is the data analysis and interpretation using SPSS. The tests which are applied

are Sign Binomial and Friedman Chi-Square Tests. The researcher has received fifty-two

responses out of sixty-four questionnaires distributed to collect information on use and

impact of OSS in the Indian scenario. The questionnaire is divided into five parts.

Table 7.1: Division of the Questionnaire

Part Title Type Respondents

Part 1 General Information Based Common Questions. Mandatory to reply for all 52

Part 2 Library Automation and Software Selection. Mandatory to reply for all 52

Part 3 Libraries using Commercial, In-house Developed, Customized, Freeware, Shareware and Public Domain Software

First type of the Library 31

Part 4 Libraries using Open Source Software Open Source Software (OSS).

Second type of the Library 10

Part 5 Libraries using both Open Source Software (OSS) and Commercial, In-house Developed, Customized, Freeware, Shareware and Public Domain Software

Third type of the Library 11

211



Responses to part one and two questions are mandatory for all three types of libraries.

Part three questions are only for those libraries that are using ‘Proprietary/Commercial,

In-house Developed, Customized, Freeware, Shareware and Public Domain Software’

and they are called as first type of libraries. Part four questions are only for those

‘Libraries using ‘OSS’ and they are called as second type of libraries. Part five questions

are only for those libraries that are using both OSS and Commercial Software and they

are called as third type of libraries.

Table 7.2: Status of Institutes/ Universities/ Centers, selected for study

Sr. No. Type of Institute Institutes

in India Proportionate Sample Size

No. of Inst.

1 Central Universities 45 4.47 4 2 State University 321 31.90 32 3 Deemed University 134 13.32 13 4 IIT 16 1.59 2 5 IIM 13 1.29 1 6 IIS 1 0.00 0 7 CSIR 39 3.88 4 8 ICMR 32 3.18 3 9 ICAR 16 1.59 2 10 ICSSR 27 2.68 3 Total 644 63.90 64

PART 1: GENERAL INFORMATION BASED COMMON QUESTIONS

Following are the questions related with part one of the questionnaire which is on

“General Information Based Common Questions”. This part is mandatory to answer

to all three types of libraries. There are total fifty-two respondents for this part of the

questionnaire.

212



Table 7.2.1: Responses Received from different Institutes

S.No. Type of the Institutes

Required Responses

Responses Received Percentage

1 Central Universities 4 5 125.00% 2 State University 32 20 62.50% 3 Deemed University 13 14 107.69% 4 IIT 2 2 100.00% 5 IIM 1 1 100.00% 6 IIS 0 0 0.00% 7 CSIR 4 2 50.00% 8 ICMR 3 3 100.00% 9 ICAR 2 2 100.00% 10 ICSSR 3 3 100.00% Total 64 52 81.25%

Figure 7.1 Responses Received from Different Institutes

Interpretation:

Table 7.2 shows the status of Institutes/ Universities/ Centers selected for study is 644.

However it is difficult to collect responses from all of the above mentioned, therefore as

per the proportionate method total population was further subdivided and after

213

0%

50%

100%

150% 125%

63%

108% 100% 100%

0%

50%

100% 100% 100%

Perc

enta

ge

Types of Institutes



subdivision it comes to 64. Out of 64 respondents 52 respondents replied (Table No.

7.2.1.) the percentage of response is 81.25%. The response is sizable and analyzed using

IBMSPSS 21 package.

Observations:

The researcher has made all possible efforts to get maximum reply from the entire

academic and research institutes form making available web questionnaire, e-mails,

personal contacts and visits in spite of his efforts research institutes like ICMR, ICAR,

ICSSR, and CSIR did not respond positively.

Table 7.3: Nature of the Academic and Research Center

Figure 7.2. Nature of the Academic and Research Centers

Sr.No. Type of Institute Nos. Percentage

1 Academic 39 75%

2 Research 13 25%

Total 52 100%

214

75%

25%

1 Academic

2 Research



Interpretation:

From the above table 7.3 and figure 7.2, it is visible that there are 75% Academic

Institutes and 25% Research Institutes selected.

Observations:

Responses received from academic institutes are maximum as compared to research

centers.

Table 7.4: Staff Qualification

Label Institutes

Qualified Staff Yes 51

No 1

ICT Qualification Yes 47

No 5

Interpretation:

Table 7.4 shows that there are fifty-one academic and research institutes where the staff

is almost fully qualified and forth seven academic and research institutes where the staff

possesses ICT qualification.

Observations:

Institutes of repute must not keep operating with unqualified staff as it may affect the

working of the library and imparting of better services to the user may get hampered.

215



Table 7.5: Communication Technologies

Types of Technologies Frequency Percentage

Mobile computing 9 16.6%

Cloud computing 1 1.9%

None of the above 43 79.6%

Other 1 1.9%

Total 54 100%

Interpretations:

From the above frequency table 7.5, it can be seen that Mobile Computing has a

frequency count of 16.6 %; Cloud Computing has a frequency count of 1.9%; none of the

above count is 79.6% and others 1.9%.

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that most of the libraries do not have Communication Technology.

Table 7. 6: Library Automation

Response Frequency Percentage Yes 52 100%

PART 2: LIBRARY AUTOMATION AND SOFTWARE SELECTION

Following are the questions related with part two of the questionnaire which is on

“Library Automation and Software Selection”. This part is mandatory to answer to all

three types of libraries. There are total fifty two respondents for this part of

questionnaire.

216



Figure 7.3: Library Automation

Interpretation:

The above table 7.6 shows that there are 100 % of respondents saying they have achieved

library automation.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondent said ‘Yes’ as they have achieved

library automation.

Table7. 7: Status of Automation

Status of Automation Responses Percentage

Full Automated 39 75%

Partially Automated 13 25%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.4: Status of Automation

217



Interpretation:

The above table 7.7 shows that there are 75% of respondents saying they have fully

automated their library and 25% of the respondents have partially automated their library.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents have achieved library

automation.

Table 7. 8: Types of Software

Options Responses Percentage

Library using commercial software 31 59.6%

Libraries using open source software 10 19.2%

Libraries using both open source and commercial source 11 21.2%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.5: Types of Software

59.6%

19.2% 21.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Library using commercialsoftware

Libraries using open sourcesoftware

Libraries using both opensource and commercial source

Perc

enta

ge

Options

218



Interpretation:

From the table 7.8 it is seen that 59.6% of the respondent said they are using Commercial, In-house, Shareware, etc. software, 19.2% of the respondent said they are using OSS and 21.2% of the respondent said they are using both OSS and Commercial, In-house, Freeware, Shareware, etc. software.

Observations:

Hence, it can be concluded that most of the libraries are using Commercial, In-house, Freeware, Shareware, etc. software.

Table 7. 9 : Operating System


Windows 52 82.5%

OS Linux 10 15.9%

Other 1 1.6%

Total 63 100%

Interpretation:

From the above frequency table 7.9 it can be seen that Windows has a frequency count of

82.5%, OSS Linux has a frequency count of 15.9% and other has a frequency count of

1.6%. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has not mention of such options.

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that most of the libraries are using Windows operating system

for their libraries.

Table 7.10: Software currently use in Library

Sr. No

Name of the Software

Software Name Developed by Type Cost AMC To

tal

1 Library Management/ ILS

NewGenLib Verus Solutions

Open Source Free No

AMC 2

LIBSYS Libsys Inc. Commercial 14,00000 10000 16

219



Software Koha

Katipo Communicatio

Open Source 30,000 10000 9

SOUL INFLIBNET Commercial 80,000 10000 7 SLIM Algorhythms Commercial 25,0000 8

EazyLab Eazylab Sw Pvt. Commercial 35,000 5000 1

ERP system Customized

In-house developed Commercial 10,000 20000 1

Techfocus LIMS (ERP)

Techfocus Commercial 48,00000 AMC included 1

In-house Developed In-house Dev Commercial 80,000 15,000 1

InfraBITS In-house Developed Commercial 1,50,000 20,000 1

Libasoft Environ Software (P) Ltd

Commercial 78,000 12,000 1

Vartua VTCRC Inc. Commercial 400,000 56,000 1

Libraria Commercial 30000/- 7,999 1

LIBRIS --- --- --- --- 1

Total Library Solutions

TLS Group Commercial 120,000 8,000 1

Total 52

3.

Institutional Repository/ Digital Library

Dspace Dura Space --- --- --- 17

E-Print Uni. Of Southampton --- --- --- 4

E-Granth & Krishiprabha

In-house developed

--- --- --- 2

Greenstone Digital Library

New Zealand Digital Library

--- --- --- 1

Shodhganga INFLIBNET --- --- --- 2 CeRA ICAR --- --- --- 1 Customized --- --- --- --- 3 E-Lib Freeware --- --- --- 1 None --- --- --- --- 21 Total 52

220



3 Content Management

Dspace --- --- --- --- 1 Weebly --- --- --- --- 1 Black Board --- --- --- --- 1 Drupal --- --- --- --- 1 Discovery --- --- --- --- 1 Website --- --- --- --- 4 Customized --- --- --- --- 1 Shodhganga --- --- --- --- 1 Plone --- --- --- --- 1 None --- --- --- --- 40 Total 52

4 Citation Management

Google Scholor

--- --- --- --- 1

Website --- --- --- --- 1 Zotero --- --- --- --- 1 Medley --- --- --- --- 1 Endnote --- --- --- --- 1 None --- --- --- --- 47 Total 52

5 e. Journal Management

NewGenLib --- --- --- --- 1 Website --- --- --- --- 4 ICMR --- --- --- --- 1 None --- --- --- --- 46 Total 52

6 e-Journal Archiving

ICMR Website

--- --- --- --- 1

e-Krishishiksha

--- --- --- --- 1

Website --- --- --- --- 3 CeRA --- --- --- --- 1 None --- --- --- --- 46 Total 52

7

Conference Management

Website --- --- --- --- 3 None --- --- --- --- 49

Total 52

8 Meta/ Federated Searching

FedGate --- --- --- --- 2 Website --- --- --- --- 1 Jgate Plus --- --- --- --- 1

221



None 48 Total 52

9

e-Learning Management

Black Board --- --- --- --- 1 Knimbus --- --- --- --- 1 Website --- --- --- --- 1 e-Krishishikshan

--- --- --- --- 1

None --- --- --- --- 48 Total 52

10 Office Suite

Ms Office --- --- --- --- 37 LiberSoft --- --- --- --- 8 None --- --- --- --- 7 Total 52

11 Deskttop Publishing

Corel Draw --- --- --- --- 1 None --- --- --- --- 51 Total 52

12 Media Player

VLC --- --- --- --- 13 Windows Media P

--- --- --- --- 33

Real Media Player

--- --- --- --- 3

K-Lite Codec

--- --- --- --- 2

None --- --- --- --- 1 Total 52

13 Web browsing

Mozilla Firefox

--- --- --- --- 11

Chrome --- --- --- --- 30 Internet Explore

--- --- --- --- 11

Total 52

14

Scientific computation package for numerical computations

Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS)

--- --- --- --- 4

Systat --- --- --- --- 1 None --- --- --- --- 47 Total 52

15 Operating System

Windows --- --- --- --- 36 Ubuntu --- --- --- --- 2

222



Linux --- --- --- --- 14 None --- --- --- --- 0 Total 52

16

Cloud computing operating system

None --- --- --- ---

52

Total 52

17 Web conferencing

Available --- --- --- --- 2 Skype --- --- --- --- 1 Video Conferen

--- --- --- --- 0

Linux --- --- --- --- 0 Draper Barnonet VC

--- --- --- --- 1

None --- --- --- --- 48 Total 52

18 Plagiarism

Urkund --- --- --- --- 4 Turnitin --- --- --- --- 5 OSS --- --- --- --- 1 iTenticate --- --- --- --- 1 None --- --- --- --- 41 Total 52

19

Optical Character Recognition OCR

HP Scanner --- --- --- --- 1 None --- --- --- --- 51

Total 52

20 Anti-Virus

Net Protector

--- --- --- --- 1

Quick Heal --- --- --- --- 8 eScan --- --- --- --- 3 Kasperskey --- --- --- --- 2 AVG --- --- --- --- 2 Avasti --- --- --- --- 1 McAfee --- --- --- --- 5 Symantic --- --- --- --- 1 None --- --- --- --- 29 Total 52

223



Interpretations:

Table 7.10 is to know the current status of software being used by the academic and

research institute libraries. Top three category-wise software uses by the libraries are

mentioned below:

1. Library Management: Out of 52 responses 30.8% respondents said they are using

Libsys for their library, 17.3% said Koha and 15.4% said SLIM.

2. Institutional Repository/ Digital Library: Out of 52 responses 32.7% respondents

said they are not using any digital library software, 32.7% respondent said DSpace

and 7.7% said ePrint.

3. Content Management: Out of 52 responses 77% of the respondents said they are

not using any content management software, whereas 7.7% respondents said they are

maintaining all their contents on their website, and 2% respondent said they are

using Drupal and other.

4. Citation Management: Out of 52 responses 90.4% respondents said none, and the

remaining said Mendley and other.

5. e-Journal Management: Out of 52 responses 88.5% respondents said none, 7.7%

said website, and 2% said ICMR.

6. e-Journal Archiving: Out of 52 responses 88.5% said none, 6% said they are

maintaining on their website, and 2% said CeRA and other.

7. Conference Management: Out of 52 responses 94.2% said none, and 6%

respondents are maintaining on their website.

8. Meta Federated Searching: Out of 52 responses 92.3% said none, 4% respondents

said FedGate, and 2% said j-Gate Plus and website.

224



9. e-Learning Management: Out of 52 responses 92.3% said none, and remaining all

said Black Board and other.

10. Office Suite: Out of 52 responses 71.2% respondents said they are using Microsoft

Office, 15.4% LiberOffice and 13.5% none.

11. Desktop Publishing: Out of 52 responses 98.1% respondents said they are not using

any software, whereas 2% respondent said CorelDraw.

12. Media Player: Out of 52 responses 63.46% respondents said they are using Windows

Media Player, 25% said VLC and 6% said Real Media Player.

13. Web Browsing: Out of 52 responses 57.7% respondents said Chrome, 21.2% said

Mozilla Firefox, and 22% said Internet Explorer.

14. Scientific Computation Package for Numerical Computation: Out of 52 responses

90.4% said none, 7.7% said SPSS, and 2%Systat.

15. Operating System: Out of 52 responses 69.2% said Windows, 26.9% said Linux and

4% said Ubuntu.

16. Cloud Computing Operating System: Out of 52 responses 100% of the respondents

said they are not using any cloud computing operating system.

17. Web Conferencing: Out of 52 responses 92.3% said none, 4% said it is available

with them, and 2%said skype and other.

18. Plagiarism: Out of 52 responses 78.8% said none, 9.6% said Turnitin, and 7.7% said

Urkund.

19. Optical Character Recognition (OCR): Out of 52 responses 98.1% respondents

said none and 2% said through HP Scanner they have this facility.

20. Anti-Virus: Out of 52 responses 55.8% said none, 15.4% said Quick Heal, and 9.6%

said McAffee.

Observations: From the responses, it is clear that most of the libraries are using only

Library Automation and Digital Library/ Institutional Repository software as compared to

other remaining useful software.

225



7.11 : Cost benefits of software selected for Library

Options Frequency Percentage

No, never thought of cost factor or alternatives 3 5.8%

Yes the software selected is most cost effective 48 92.3%

Do not know / no answer 1 1.9%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.6 : Cost Benefits of Software Selected for Library

Interpretation:

In response to the question posed table 7.11 shows that 5.8% of the respondents said they

never thought of cost factor or alternatives, 92.3% of respondents said the software

selected is more cost effective, and 1.9% of the respondents said they do not know/no

answer for their selection.

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that a majority of the respondents said the software selected is

the most cost effective.

5.8%

92.3%

1.9% 0.0%

10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

No, never thought of costfactor or alternatives

Yes the software selected ismost cost effective

Do not know / no answer

Perc

enta

ge

Options

226



Table 7.12: Open Source Software (OSS) without Licensing Fees

Responses Frequency Percentage

Yes 47 90.4%

No 5 9.6%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.7 : Open Source Software (OSS) without Licensing Fees

Interpretation:

The table 7.12 shows that 90.4% of the respondents replied ‘Yes’ and 9.6% of the

respondent said ‘No’.

Observations:

Hence, it can be concluded that a majority of the respondents knew that Open Source

Software (OSS) does not charge any licensing fees.

227

90.4%

9.6%

YesNo



7.13: Selection of Open Source Software (OSS) for library

Table 7.13.1: Selection of Library Management Software


Koha 38 73.1%

NewGenlib 4 7.7%

ABCD 1 1.9%

BiblioteQ 1 1.9%


Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100.0% Figure 7.8: Selection of Library Management Software

Interpretation:

As per the table 7.13., 73.1% of the respondent said they would prefer Koha; 7.7% said

NewGenLib; 1.9% said ABCD; 1.9% said Biblioteq; 11.5% said none of the other; 3.8%

said other. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no mention of such options.

Observations:

Hence, it is concluded that a majority of the respondents prefer Koha.

73.1%

7.7% 1.9% 1.9%

11.5% 3.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Koha NewGenlib ABCD BiblioteQ None of theabove

Other

Perc

enta

ge

Options

228



Table 7.13.2: Selection of Digital Library/ Institutional Repository Software


GSDL 5 9.6%

DSpace 38 73.1%

Ganesha 1 1.9%

E-Print 3 5.8%


Total 52 100.0%

Figure 7.9 : Selection of Digital Library/ Institutional Repository Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.2, 9.6% of the respondent said they would prefer Green Stone Digital

Library (GSDL), 73.1% said DSpace, 1.9% Ganesha, 5.8% said ePrint, 9.6% said ‘None

of the above.’ Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no mention of such

options.

Observations:

Hence, it is concluded that a majority of the respondents prefer DSpace.

9.6%

73.1%

1.9% 5.8% 9.6%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%

GSDL DSpace Ganesha EPrint None of theabove

Perc

enta

ge

Options

229



Table 7.13.3 : Selection of Web Development/ Content/ Knowledge Management System


Joomla 22 42.3%

Drupal 9 17.3%

Wordpress 8 15.4%

Mambo 1 1.9%

Plone 2 3.8%


Other 1 1.9%

Total 52 100.0%

Figure 7.10 : Selection of Web Development/ Content/ Knowledge Management System

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.3, 42.3% of the respondent said they would prefer Joomla; 17.3% said

Drupal; 15.4% said Wordpress; 1.9% said Mambo; 3.8% said Plone; 17.3% said ‘None of

the above’ 1.9% said ‘Other’. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no

mention of such options.

Observations:

Hence, it is concluded that a majority of the respondents prefer Joomla.

42.3%

17.3% 15.4%

1.9% 3.8%

17.3%

1.9% 0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Joomla Drupal Wordpress Mambo Plone None of theabove

Other

Perc

enta

ge

Options

230



Table 7.13.4 : Selection of Citation/ Reference/ Bibliography/ Management

Software.


Docear 4 7.7%

Referencer 7 13.4%

Zotero 24 46.1%


Other 1 1.9%

Total 52 100.0%

Figure 7.11 : Selection of Citation/ Reference/ Bibliography/ Management Software.

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.4, 7.7% of the respondent said they would prefer Docear; 13.4% said

Referencer, 46.1% said Zotero; 30.8% said ‘None of the above’ 1.9 % said ‘Other’.

Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no mention of such options.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents prefer Zotero.

7.7%

13.4%

46.1%

30.8%

1.9% 0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%50.0%

Docear Referencer Zotero None of theabove

Other

Perc

enta

ge

Options

231



Table 7.13.5 : Selection of Journal Management/ Publishing Software


Ambra 1 1.9 % Open ACS 3 5.8% Open Journal System 26 50.0% Public Knowledge Management PKP

2 3.8%

None of the above 19 36.5% Other 1 1.9% Total 52 100.0

Figure 7.12 : Selection of Journal Management/ Publishing Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.5, 1.9% of the respondent said they would prefer Ambra, 5.8% said Open ACS,

50 % Open Journal System, 3.8% said Public Knowledge Management PKP, 36.5% said ‘None

of the above’ 1.9% said ‘Other’. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no mention of

such options.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents prefer Open Journal System.

1.9% 5.8%

50%

3.8%

36.5%

1.9% 0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Ambra Open ACS Open JournalSystem

PublicKnowledge

ManagementPKP

None of theabove

Other

Perc

enta

ge

Options

232



Table 7.13.6: Selection of Electronic Journal Archiving


CLOCKSS/LOCKSS 8 15.4%


Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100.0%

Figure 7.13 : Selection of Electronic Journal Archiving

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.6, 15.4% of the respondent said they would prefer

CLOCKSS/LOCKSS; 80.8% said ‘None of the above’, and 3.8% said ‘Other’.

Observations:

Hence, it is concluded that a majority of the respondents prefer ‘None of the above’

software.

15.4%

80.8%

3.8% 0.0%

10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

CLOCKSS/LOCKSS None of the above Other

Perc

enta

ge

Options

233



Table 7.13.7 : Selection of Meta Searching/ Federated Searching


LibraryFind 12 23.1%

Masterkey 1 1.9%


Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.14 : Selection of Meta Searching/ Federated Searching

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.7, 23.1% of the respondent said they would prefer LibraryFind; 1.9%

said Masterkey; 71.2% said n’None of the above’, and 3.8% said ‘Other’. Wherever the

frequency is zero (0) the table has no mention of such options.

Observations:

Hence, it is concluded that a majority of the respondents selected ‘None of the above’

option.

23.1%

1.9%

71.2%

3.8% 0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

LibraryFind Masterkey None of theabove

Other

Perc

enta

ge

Options

234



Table 7.13.8 Selection of e-Learning Management System


Moodle 36 69.2%


Other 1 1.9%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.15 : Selection of e-Learning Management System

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.8, 69.2 % of the respondent said they would prefer Moodle, 28.8% said

none of the above, 1.9% said other. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no


Observations:

Hence, it is concluded that a majority of the respondents prefer Moodle.

69.2%

28.8%

1.9% 0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Moodle None of the above Other

Perc

enta

ge

Options

235



Table 7.13.9 Selection of Office Suite


LiberOffice 36 69.2%

Writer 2 3.8%

LaTeX 1 1.9%


Other 1 1.9%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.16 : Selection of Office Suite

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.9, 69.2 % of the respondent said they would prefer LiberOffice, 3.8%

said Writer, 1.9% said LeTex, 23.1% said none of the above, 1.9% said other. Wherever

the frequency is zero (0) the table has no mention of such options.

Observations:

Hence, it is concluded that a majority of the respondents prefer LiberOffice.

69.2%

3.8% 1.9%

23.1%

1.9% 0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

LiberOffice Writer LiberOffice None of theabove

Other

Perc

enta

ge

Options

236



Table 7.13.10: Selection for Desktop Publishing


Scribus 6 11.5%


Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.17 : Selection of Desktop Publishing

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.10, 11.5% of the respondent said they would prefer Scribus, 84.6% said

none of the above, 3.8% other.

Observations:

Hence, it is concluded that a majority of the respondents offered ‘None of the above’

reply.

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

Scribus None of theabove

Other

11.5%

84.6%

3.8% Perc

enta

ge

Options

237



Table 7.13.11: Selection of Media Player/ Flash Media Player


VLC 36 69.2%

JWFlash Player 1 1.9%

Flow Player 5 9.6%


Total 52 100%

Figure 7.18: Selection of Media Player/ Flash Media Player

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.11, 69.2 % of the respondent said they would prefer VLC, 1.9% said

JWFlash Player, 9.6% said Flow Player, 19.2% said ‘None of the above’. Wherever the


Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents prefer VLC.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

VLC JWFlashPlayer

Flow Player None of theabove

69.2%

1.9% 9.6%

19.2%

Perc

enta

ge

Options

238



Table 7.13.12: Selection for Web Browser Software


Mozilla Firefox 10 19.2%

Google Chrome 31 59.6%


Total 52 100%

Figure 7.19: Selection for Web Browser Software

Interpretation:

As per table (7.13.12) 19.2% of the respondent said they would prefer Mozilla Firefox,

59.6% Google Chrome, 21.2% said ‘None of the above’. Wherever the frequency is zero

(0) the table has no mention of such options.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that majority of the respondent prefers Google Chrome.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Mozilla Firefox Google Chrome None of theabove

19.2%

59.6%

21.2%

Perc

enta

ge

Options

239



Table 7.13.13: Selection for Scientific Computation Package for Numerical

Computations Software

Options Frequency Percentage Scilab 3 5.8% None of the above 48 92.3% Other 1 1.9% Total 52 100%

Figure 7.20 : Selection for Scientific Computation Package for Numerical

Computations Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.13, 5.8% of the respondent said they would prefer Scilab, 92.3% said

none of the above, 1.9% said other.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents offered ‘None of the above’

reply.

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

100.00%

Scilab None of theabove

Other

5.8%

92.3%

1.9% Perc

enta

ge

Options

240



Table 7.13.14: Selection for Operating System Software


Unix/Linux 12 23.1%

Ubuntu 23 44.2%

Debian 2 3.8%

Red Hat 1 1.9%


Total 52 100%

Figure 7.21: Selection for Operating System Software

Interpretation:

As per table (7.13.14 ) 23.1% of the respondent said they would prefer Unix/Linux,

44.2% said Ubuntu, 3.8% said Debian, 1.9% said Red Hat, 26.9% said None of the

above. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no mention of such options.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents prefer Ubuntu.

0.00%5.00%

10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00%

Unix/Linux Ubuntu Debian Red Hat None of theabove

23.1%

44.2%

3.8% 1.9%

26.9%

Perc

enta

ge

Options

241



Table 7.13.15: Selection for Server Operating System Software

Options Frequency Percentage RedHat Enterprise Linux 8 15.4% Canonical Ubuntu Server 2 3.8% Centos Linux 1 1.9% None of the above 40 76.9% Other 1 1.9% Total 52 100%

Figure 7.22 : Selection for Server Operating System Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.15, 15.4% of the respondent said they would prefer RedHat Enterprise

Linux, 3.8% said Canonical Ubuntu Server, 1.9% said Centos Linux, 76.9% said ‘None

of the above’, 1.9% said ‘Other’. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no


Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents selected ‘None of the above’

option.

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%

RedHatEnterprise

Linux

CanonicalUbuntuServer

CentosLinux

None ofthe above

Other

15.4%

3.8% 1.9%

76.9%

1.9%

Perc

enta

ge

Options

242



Table7.13.16: Selection for Cloud Computing Operating System Software



Other 1 1.9%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.23 : Selection for Cloud Computing Operating System Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.16, 98.1% of the respondent preferred ‘None of the above’ option, and

1.9% said other. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no mention of such

options.

Observations:


option.

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

100.00%

None of the above Other

98.1%

1.9%

Perc

enta

ge

Options

243



Table 7.13.17: Selection for Web Conferencing Software


WebHuddle 1 1.9%

dimdim 2 3.8%


Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.24 : Selection for Web Conferencing Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.17, 1.9% of the respondent said they would prefer WebHuddle, 3.8%

said dimdim, 90.4% said ‘None of the above’, 3.8% ‘Other’.

Observations:


option.

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

100.00%

WebHuddle dimdim None of theabove

Other

1.9% 3.8%

90.4%

3.8% Perc

enta

ge

Options

244



Table 7.13.18: Selection of Plagiarism Software


Desktop Plagiarism 1 1.9%

PlagiarismCheckerX 1 1.9%


Other 47 90.4%

Plaggie 1.1 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.25 : Selection of Plagiarism Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.18, 1.9 % of the respondent said they would prefer Desktop Plagiarism,

1.9% said Plagiarism Checker X, 1.9% said none of the above, 90.4% said other, 3.8 said

Plaggie.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents selected ‘Other’ option.

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

1.9% 1.9% 1.9%

90.4%

3.8%

Perc

enta

ge

Options

245



Table 7.13.19 : Selection for Optical Character Recognition (OCR) Software


Screen Translator 3 5.8%


Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.26 : Selection for Optical Character Recognition (OCR) Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.19, 5.8% of the respondent said they would prefer Screen Translator,

90.4% said ‘None of the above’, 3.8% said ‘Other’. Wherever the frequency is zero (0)

the table has no mention of such options.

Observations:


option.

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

100.00%

Screen Translator None of the above Other

5.8%

90.4%

3.8%

Perc

enta

ge

Options

246



Table 7.13.20: Selection for Anti Virus Software



Other 3 5.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.27 : Selection for Anti Virus Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.13.20, 94.2 % of the respondent said they would prefer ‘None of the

above’ option rather than selecting from the given options. 5.8% said ‘Other’. Wherever


Observations:


option.

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

100.00%

None of the above Other

94.2%

5.8% Perc

enta

ge

Options

247



7.14: Other OSS helpful for Librarian and Users

Table 7.14.1: Selection of Next Generation OPAC’s software


SOPAC 1 1.9%

VuFind 1 1.9%

Evergreen 17 32.7%

Bluefind 1 1.9%

Not none 31 59.6%

Other 1 1.9%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.28 : Selection of Next Generation OPAC’s software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.1, 1.9 % of the respondent said they know Sopac, 1.9% said VuFind,

32.7% said Evergreen, 1.9% said BlueFind, 59.6% said ‘None’, 1.9% said ‘Other’.


Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondent selected ‘Not none’ option.

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%

1.9% 1.9%

32.7%

1.9%

59.6%

1.9% Pece

ntag

e

Options

248



Table 7.14.2: Selection for Document Management System software


OpenDocMan 17 32.7%

OpenKM- Knowledge Management 1 1.9%

Not none 32 61.5%

Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100.0%

Figure 7.29 : Selection for Document Management System software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.2, 32.7% of the respondent said they know OpenDocMan, 1.9% said

Open KM Knowledge Management, 61.5% said ‘None’, 3.8% other. Wherever the


Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know ‘Document

Management System’ OSS.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

OpenDocMan OpenKM-Knowledge

Management

Not none Other

32.7%

1.9%

61.5%

3.8%

Perc

enta

ge

Options

249



Table 7.14.3 : Selection of PDF Document Editing Software


pdfedit 14 26.9%

pdfjam 6 11.5%

pdf180 1 1.9%

Not none 29 55.8%

Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100.0%

Figure 7.30 : Selection of . PDF Document Editing Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.3, 26.9 % of the respondent they know pdfedit, 11.5% said pdfjam,

1.9% said pdf180, 55.8% said ‘None’, and 3.8% said ‘Other’. Wherever the frequency is

zero (0) the table has no mention of such options.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know ‘PDF Document Editing’ OSS.

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

pdfedit

pdfjam

pdf180

Not none

Other

26.9%

11.5%

1.9%

55.8%

3.8%

Percentage

Opt

ions

250



Table 7.14.4: Selection for Drawing Software


Draw 3 5.8%

Not none 48 92.3%

Other 1 1.9%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.31 : Selection for Drawing Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.4, 5.8 % of the respondent said they know Draw, 92.3% said ‘None’,

1.9% ‘Other’. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no mention of such

options.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know Draw, OSS.

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Draw

Not none

Other

5.8%

92.3%

1.9%

Percentage

Opt

ions

251



Table 7.14.5: Selection for Image Editing and Graphics Designing Software


GIMP 15 28.8%

Not none 35 67.3%

Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.32 : Selection for Image Editing and Graphics Designing Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.5, 28.8% of the respondent said they know GIMP, 67.3% said ‘None’,

3.8% said ‘Other’. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no mention of such

options.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know Image Editing and Graphics Designing, OSS.

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%

GIMP

Not none

Other

28.8%

67.3%

3.8%

Percentage

Opt

ions

252



Table 7.14.6 : Selection for Audio Video Recording of talks and Editing Software


OpenEyA 2 3.8%

Audacity 12 23.1%

Avidemux 3 5.8%

HandBrake 3 5.8%

Not none 31 59.6%

Other 1 1.9%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.33 : Selection for . Audio Video Recording of talks and Editing Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.6, 3.8% of the respondents said they know OpenEya, 23.1% said

Audacity, 5.8% said Avidemux, 5.8% said Handbrake, 59.6% said none. 1.9% said

‘Other’. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no mention of such options.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know Audio Video Recording of talks and Editing, OSS.

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

OpenEyA

Audacity

Avidemux

HandBrake

Not none

Other

3.8%

23.1%

5.8%

5.8%

59.6%

1.9%

Percentage

Opt

ions

253



Table 7.14.7: Selection for Web Downloading Software


HT Track 5 9.6%

Not none 45 86.5%

Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.34 : Selection for Web Downloading Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.7, 9.6% of the respondent said they know the Web Downloading, 86.5% said ‘None’, 3.8% said ‘Other’.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know the Web Downloading software.

0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%

HT Track

Not none

Other

9.6%

86.5%

3.8%

Percentage

Opt

ions

254



Table 7.14.8: Selection for Wiki Management


Media Wiki 17 32.6%

MoinMoin 3 5.7%

Not none 31 59.6%

Other 1 1.9%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.35 : Selection of Wiki Management

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.8, 19.2% of the respondent said they know the Wiki Management,

19.2% said Media Wiki, 59.6% said none, 1.9% said ‘Other’. Wherever the frequency is

zero (0) the table has no mention of such options.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know Wiki Management OSS.

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Media Wiki

MoinMoin

Not none

Other

32.6%

5.7%

59.6%

1.9%

Percentage

Opt

ions

255



Table 7.14.9: Selection for Mobile Operating System Software


Android 36 69.2%

Not none 15 28.8%

Other 1 1.9%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.36 : Selection for Mobile Operating System Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.9, 69.2 % of the respondent said they know the Mobile Operating

System, 28.8% ‘None’, and 1.9 said ‘Other’.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that majority of the respondent does not know Mobile Operating

System, OSS.

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0%80.0%

Android

Not none

Other

69.2%

28.8%

1.9%

Percentage

Opt

ions

256



Table 7.14.10: Selection of Web Programming / Language/ Server / Database Management Software


C 1 1.9%

C++ 2 3.8%

Java 5 9.6%

MySQL 15 28.8%

PostgresSQL 4 7.7%

Not none 24 46.2%

Other 1 1.9%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.37 : Selection of Web Programming / Language/ Server / Database Management Software

Interpretation:

As per table (7.14.10 ) 1.9 % of the respondent said they know the ‘C’ Web

Programming / Language/ Server / Database Management, 3.8% said C++, 9.6% said

Java, 28.8 % said MySQL, 7.7 % said PstgresSQL, 46.2% not none, 1.9% other.


Observations:

Hence it is concluded that majority of the respondent does not know ‘Web Programming

/ Language/ Server / Database Management’ Open Source Software (OSS).

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

CC++

JavaMySQL

PostgresSQLNot none

Other

1.9% 3.8%

9.6% 28.8%

7.7% 46.2%

1.9%

Percentage

Opt

ions

257



\Table 7.14.11: Selection for Instant Messaging Software

Options Frequency Percentage Pidgin 6 11.5% Not none 45 86.5% Other 1 1.9% Total 52 100%

Figure 7.38 : Selection for Instant Messaging Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.11, 11.5% of the respondent said they know the ‘Pidgin’, 86.5% said

none, 1.9% said other.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondent do not know ‘Instant Messaging OSS.

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Pidgin

Not none

Other

11.5%

86.5%

1.9%

Percentage

Opt

ions

258



Table 7.14.12: Selection for Screen Casting Software


CamStudio 8 15.4%

Not none 42 80.8%

Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.39 : Selection for Screen Casting Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.12, 15.4 % of the respondent said they know the CamStudio, 80.8%

said ‘None’, 3.8% said ‘Other’. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no


Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know Screen Casting OSS.

0.0%50.0%

100.0%

CamStudio

Not none

Other

15.4%

80.8%

3.8%

Percentage

Opt

ions

259



Table 7.14.13: Selection of Online Survey


LimeSurvey 24 46.2%

Not none 26 50.0%

Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.40 : Selection of Online Survey

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.13, 46.2 % of the respondent said they know the LimeSurvey, 50.0%

said ‘None’, 3.8% said ‘Other’.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know the Online Survery OSS.

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

LimeSurvey

Not none

Other

46.2%

50.0%

3.8%

Percentage

Opt

ions

260



Table 7.14.14: Selection for Portable Apps


Portableapps 6 11.5%

Not none 44 84.6%

Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.41 : Selection for Portable Apps

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.14, 11.5 % of the respondent said they know the ‘Portable Apps’,

84.6% said ‘None’, 3.8% said ‘Other’.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondent do not know the ‘Portable Apps’OSS.

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Portableapps

Not none

Other

11.5%

84.6%

3.8%

Percentage

Opt

ions

261



Table 7.14.15: Selection of Social Networking Software


Buddy Press 5 9.6%

Not none 45 86.5%

Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.42 : Selection of Social Networking Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.15, 9.6 % of the respondent said they know the BuddyPress, 86.5% said

‘None’, 3.8 % said ‘Other’.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know the Social Networking, OSS.

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Buddy Press

Not none

Other

9.6%

86.5%

3.8%

Percentage

Opt

ions

262



Table 7.14.16: Selection of Project Management


dotProject 4 7.7%

Not none 46 88.5%

Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.43 : Selection of Project Management

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.16, 7.7% of the respondent said they know the dotProject, 88.5% said

‘None’, 3.8% said ‘Other’.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know the ‘Project

Management, OSS.

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

DotProject

Not none

Other

7.7%

88.5%

3.8%

Percentage

Opt

ions

263



Table 7.14.17: Selection of Library Apps Software


Reference Stats 3 5.8%

ebook Library Management Calibre 3 5.8%

Not none 45 86.5%

Other 1 1.9%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.44 : Selection of Library Apps Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.17, 5.8 % of the respondent said they know the ‘Library Apps’, 5.8%

said Ebook Library Management, 86.5% said ‘None’, 1.9% said ‘Other’.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know ‘Library Apps’, OSS.

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%100.0%

Reference Stats

ebook Library ManagementCalibre

Not none

Other

5.8%

5.8%

86.5%

1.9%

Percentage

Opt

ions

264



Table 7.14.18: Selection of Virtual Machine Software


virtualbox 2 3.8%

Not none 48 92.3%

Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.45 : Selection of Virtual Machine Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.18, 3.8% of the respondent said they know the Virtualbox, 92.3% said

‘None’, 3.8% said ‘Other’. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no mention

of such options.

Observations:

Hence, it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know virtual machine software.

0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00%100.00%

Virtualbox

Not none

Other

3.8%

92.3%

3.8%

Percentage

Opt

ions

265



Table 7.14.19: Selection of Animation and Computer Graphics Software


Blender 8 15.4%

Not none 42 80.8%

Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.46 :Selection of Animation and Computer Graphics Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.19, 15.4% of the respondent said they know the Blender, 80.8% said

‘None’, 3.8% said ‘Other’.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that majority of the respondent does not know the ‘Animation and Computer Graphics’ OSS.

15.4%

80.8%

3.8%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Blender

Not none

Other

Percentage

Opt

ions

266



Table 7.14.20 Selection of e-mail Server


Zimba 5 9.6%

Zarafa 3 5.8%

Not none 43 82.7%

Other 1 1.9%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.47 :Selection of e-mail Server

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.20, 9.6% of the respondent said they know Zimba, 5.8% said ‘Zarafa’,

82.7% none, 1.9% ‘Other’.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know the ‘e-Mail

Server’OSS.

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Zimba

Zarafa

Not none

Other

9.6%

5.8%

82.7%

1.9%

Percentage

Opt

ions

267



Table 7.14.21: Selection of Search Engine Software


Lucene/ Solr 5 9.6%

Xapian 2 3.8%

Not none 44 84.6%

Other 1 1.9%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.48 : Selection of Search Engine Software

Interpretation:

As per table (7.14.21), 9.6 % of the respondent said they know the Lucene/ Solr, 3.8%

said Xapian, 84.6% ‘None’, 1.9% ‘Other’.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know the ‘Search Engine’ OSS.

0.0% 20.0%40.0% 60.0% 80.0%100.0%

Lucene/ Solr

Xapian

Not none

Other

9.6%

3.8%

84.6%

1.9%

Percentage

Opt

ions

268



Table 7.14.22: Selection of Workflow, Forms and Case Management Software


Foxopen 2 3.8%

Not none 48 92.3%

Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.49 : Selection of Workflow, Forms and Case Management Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.22, 3.8% of the respondent said they know the Foxopen, 92.3%

‘None’, 3.8% ‘Other’. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) table has no mention of such

options.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know ‘Workflow, Forms and Case Management’; OSS.

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Foxopen

Not none

Other

3.8%

92.3%

3.8%

Percentage

Opt

ions

269



Table 7.14.23: Selection of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Software


OpenERP 5 9.6%

Not none 45 86.5%

Other 2 3.8%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.50 : Selection of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Software

Interpretation:

As per table 7.14.23, 9.6% of the respondent said they know the OpenERP, 86.5% said

‘None’, 3.8% said ‘Other’. Wherever frequency is zero (0) the table has no mention of

such options.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents do not know the ‘Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)’; OSS.

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

OpenERP

Not none

Other

9.6%

86.5%

3.8%

Percentage

Opt

ions

270



Table 7.15: Adoption of other and Known Open Source Software (OSS)


Yes 37 71.15%

No 15 28.85%

Total 52 100%

Figure 7.51 : Adoption of other and Known Open Source Software (OSS)

Interpretation:

The table 7.15, shows that 71.15% of the respondent said ‘Yes’, and 28.85% said ‘No’.

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that a majority of the respondents are ready to adopt OSS.

271



7.16: Reasons for the Adoption of OSS

Statistical Test: Friedman Chi-Square Test

Variables for Measurement: Respondents were offered the ten reasons for adopting

Open Source Software. They are source code is open; easy to install, modify and

maintain; availability of training, workshop, forum, community, guidance and

documentation; cost effective; international standards; free from vendor locking;

scalability and interoperability; ability to fit to any type of the library; web enabled and

user friendly; and hardware compatibility. They were to rate each reason on five point

scale: 1- Very Minor, 2- Minor, 3- Neutral, 4- Major, 5- Very Major.

H0: There is no difference in the importance respondents attached to the various reasons

for adopting OSS.

H1: There is a significant difference in the importance respondents attached to the

various reasons of adopting OSS.

Level of Significance is; α = 0.05

Table 7.16.1: Test Statistics

χ2 (9) = 96.193, Pvalue = 0.000

Conclusion:

Since Pvalue (0.000) is less than level of significance (0.05) so null hypothesis is

rejected. Hence it is concluded that there is a significance difference in the importance

respondents attached to the various reasons for adopting Open Source Software.

N 52

Chi-Square 96.193

df 9

Asymp. Sig. .000

272



Table 7.16.2: Rank and Mean Rank

Ranks Mean Rank

Source code is open 5.88

Easy to install, modify and maintain 5.06

Availability of training, workshop, forum, community, guidance and documentation 6.21

Cost effective 5.89

International Standards 6.33

Free from vendor locking 6.15

Scalability and Interoperability 6.35

Ability to fit to any type of the library 4.32

Web enabled and user friendly 4.32

Hardware Compatibility 4.50

From the ranks table 7.16.2 it is seen that…

1. Scalability and Interoperability has a mean rank of - 6.35

2. International Standards has a mean rank of - 6.33

3. Availability of training, workshop, forum, community, guidance and documentation

has a mean rank of - 6.21

4. Free from vendor locking has a mean rank of - 6.15

5. Cost effective has a mean rank of - 5.89

6. Source code is open has a mean rank of - 5.88

7. Easy to install, modify and maintain has a mean rank of - 5.06

8. Hardware Compatibility has a mean rank of - 4.5

9. Ability to fit to any type of the library has a mean rank of - 4.32

10. Web enabled and user friendly has a mean rank of - 4.32

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that the top three reasons for adopting Open Source Software

are;

1. Scalability and Interoperability

2. International Standards and

3.Availability of training, workshop, forum, community, guidance and documentation.

273



7.17: Reason for Non-adoption of OSS


Variables for Measurement: Respondents were offered seven reasons for non-adoption

of Open Source Software. They are lack of reliability, longevity, technical and

community support; no vendor policy and no accountability; training and documentation

insufficient; does not support to Windows effectively; hard to convince the authorities;

concern about software and data security; and lack of technical knowledge required to

install and maintain. They were to rate each reason on five point scale; 1- Very Minor, 2-

Minor, 3- Neutral, 4- Major, 5- Very Major.


for the non- adoption of OSS.

H1: There is significant difference in the importance respondents attached to the various

reasons for the non-adoption OSS.


Table 7. 17. 1: Test Statistics

χ2 (6) = 24.479, Pvalue = 0.000

Conclusion:


rejected. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant difference in the importance

respondents attached to the various reasons of non-adoption of Open Source Software.

N 52

Chi-Square 24.479

df 6

Asymp. Sig. .000

274



Table 7.17.2 : Rank and Mean Rank

Ranks Mean Rank

Lack of reliability, longevity, technical and community support 4.06

No vendor policy and no accountability 4.13

Training and documentation insufficient 4.01

Does not support to Windows effectively 3.71

Hard to convince the authorities 3.70

Concern about software and data security 4.07

Lack of technical knowledge required to install and Maintain 4.33

From the ranks table 7.17.2 it is observed:

1. Lack of technical knowledge required to Install and Maintain has a mean rank of - 4.33

2. No vendor policy and no accountability has a mean rank of - 4.13

3. Concern about software and data security has a mean rank of - 4.07

4. Lack of reliability, longevity, technical and community support has a mean rank of -

4.06.

5. Training and documentation insufficient has a mean rank of - 4.01

6. Does not support to Windows effectively has a mean rank of - 3.71

7. Hard to convince the authorities has a mean rank of - 3.7

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that the top three reasons for the non-adoption of Open Source

Software are:

1. Lack of technical knowledge required to Install & Maintain

2. No vendor policy and no accountability

3. Concern about software & data security.

275



Table 7.18: Software Selection Criteria


Randomly selected 1 2.9%

Suggested by colleagues 1 2.9%

Selected by College/ Institutions authorities. 18 52.9%

Seen the demonstration and agreed to purchase/ adopt. 13 38.2%

Other 1 2.9%

Total 34 100%

Interpretation:

From the above frequency table 7.18, it is seen that ‘Randomly Selected’ has a frequency

count of 2.9%, ‘Suggested by colleagues’ has a frequency count of 2.9%, ‘Selected by

College/ Institutions authorities’ has a frequency count of 52.9%, ‘Seen the

demonstration and agreed to purchase/ adopt’ has a frequency count of 38.2% and

‘Other ‘2.9%.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that colleges/institution authorities select software for their

libraries. Whereas it is the responsibility of subject expert along with an IT expert in

conjugation to take a more capable taking this decision.

PART 3: LIBRARIES USING COMMERCIAL, IN-HOUSE DEVELOPED,

CUSTOMIZED, FREEWARE, SHAREWARE AND PUBLIC DOMAIN

SOFTWARE.

Following are the questions related with part three of the questionnaire which is on

“Libraries Using Commercial, In-house Developed, Customized, Freeware, Shareware

and Public Domain Software”. This part is mandatory to answer for only type first

library using Proprietary/ Commercial Software. There are total thirty one respondents

for this part of the questionnaire.

276



Table 7.19: Satisfaction with the Selection


Yes 18 58%

No 13 42%

Total 31 100%

Figure 7.52 : Satisfaction with the Selection

Interpretation:

The table 7.19, shows that 58 % of the respondent said they are satisfied with the

selection and 42% of the respondent said they are not satisfied with the selection.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that libraries who have given preference to commercial software

over OSS are satisfied with their selection and have no intention to switch to OSS.

58%

42% YesNo

277



Table 7.20: Reasons for Software Selection (Yes)


It gives me all the reports required for inspection and covers all the functions 6 33.3%

Support is powerful 24 x 7 6 33.3%

It responds quickly and it is user friendly 2 11.1%

Up-gradation is on regular bases 2 11.1%

Onsite support for fixing errors and bugs 2 11.1%

Total 18 100%

Interpretation:

From the above frequency table 7.20, it can be seen that ‘It gives me all the reports

required for inspection and covers all the functions’ has a frequency count of 33.3%,

‘Support is powerful 24 x 7’ has a frequency count of 33.3%, ‘It responds quickly and it

is user friendly’ has a frequency count of 11.1%, ‘Up-gradation is on regular bases’ has

a frequency count of 11.1% and ‘Onsite support for fixing errors and bugs’ has a

frequency count of 11.1%.Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no mention of

such options.

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that’s the support is powerful 24x7 is an option that a majority

of respondents given preference.

Table 7.21: Non Satisfaction with the Selection (No)


Modifications are impossible unless considered and amended in next version 2 18.5%

Customization is limited 3 22.2%

Remote support is not satisfactory 3 25.9%

No up-gradation and no online support 4 29.6%

Other 1 3.7%

Total 13 100%

278



Interpretation:

From the above frequency table 7.21, it is seen that ‘Modifications are impossible unless

considered and amended in next version’ has a frequency count of 18.5%;

‘Customization is limited’ has a frequency count of 22.2;‘Remote support is not

satisfactory’ has a frequency count of 25.9%; ‘No up-gradation and no online support’

has a frequency count of 29.6% and ‘Other’ has a frequency count of 3.7%.Wherever


Observations:

Hence it is concluded that ‘No up-gradation and no online support’ is the main reason

that respondents are not satisfied with the selection.

Table 7.22: Facts about Open Source Software (OSS)


Free to download 20 29.0%

No license fees 16 23.2%

Source Code is open 22 31.9%

Usage, Modifications, and Redistribution is possible 8 11.6%

Other 3 4.3%

Total 69 100%

Interpretation:

From the above frequency table 7.22, it can be seen that ‘Free to download’ has a

frequency count of 29.0%; ‘No license fees’ has a frequency count of 23.2%; ‘Source

Code is open’ has a frequency count of 31.9%; ‘Usage, Modifications, and

Redistribution is possible’ has a frequency count of 11.6% and ‘Other’ has a frequency

count of 4.3%.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that majority of respondent know the fact that OSS source code is

open.

279



Table 7.23: Workshop/ Hands on Practice Attended


Yes 20 64.5%

No 11 35.5%

Total 31 100%

Figure 7.54 : Workshop/ Hands on Practice Attended

Interpretation:

The table 7.23 shows that 64.5% of the respondent said they have attended

workshop/hands on practice, and 35.5% of the respondents said they have not attended

any workshop/hands on practice.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the librarians have attended workshop/hands on

practice on OSS.

64.5%

35.5% Yes No

280



Table 7.24: Impact after Workshop


Excellent and would like to implement in my library 11 28.9%

I don’t have enough resources to implement it 5 13.2%

Lack of confidence, not sure whether the system will survive or fail. 8 21.1%

Require more exposure, training, and support of the authorities. 10 26.3%

Other 4 10.5%

Total 38 100%

Interpretation:

From the above frequency table 7.24, it is seen that ‘Excellent and would like to

implement in my library’ has a frequency count of 28.9%; ‘I don’t have enough

resources to implement it’ has a frequency count of 13.2%; ‘Lack of confidence, not

sure whether the system will survive or fail’ has a frequency count of 21.1%; ‘Require

more exposure, training, and support of the authorities’ has a frequency count of 26.3%

and ‘Other’ has a frequency count of 10.5%.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents would like to implement OSS in their libraries.

Table 7.25: Opinion about OSS replaces the Commercial and etc. Software in Future


Partially agree 8 25.8%

Fully agree 12 38.7%

Partially disagree 2 6.5%

Neither agree nor disagree 9 29%

Total 31 100%

281



Interpretation:

The table 7.25 shows that 25.8% of the respondent said they partially agree; 38.7% of the

respondent said they fully agree; 6.5% said they are partially disagree; 29% said they are

neither agree nor disagree.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that majority of the librarians fully agreed that in the near future

OSS will replace the commercial and other software.

Table 7.26: Improvements in Commercial Software


Lack of International Standards e.g. MARC, Z39.50, ISO 2709, etc 17 24.6%

Latest Programming Language to keep pace with the speed/response of the software 7 10.1%

Software Test: Bugs and Error less. 5 7.2%

Uninterrupted technical support and maintenance of software 6 8.7%

Migration of data 15 21.7%

User controlled customization 3 4.3%

Scalability: Single user, Multi use network 4 5.8%

Customized report generation 9 13.0%


Other 1 1.4%

Total 69 100%

Interpretations:

From the above frequency table 7.26, it is that ‘Lack of International Standards e.g.

MARC, Z39.50, ISO 2709 etc.’ has a frequency count of 24.6% ; ‘Latest Programming

Language to keep pace with the speed/response of the software’ has a frequency count of

10.1%,; ‘Software Test: Bugs and Error’ less has a frequency count of 7.2%;

282



‘Uninterrupted technical support and maintenance of software’ has a frequency count of

8.7%; ‘Migration of data’ has a frequency count of 21.7%; ‘User controlled

customization’ has a frequency count of 4.3%; ‘Scalability: Single user, Multi use

network’ has a frequency count of 5.8%; ‘Customized report generation’ has a frequency

count of 13%; ‘None of the above’ has a frequency count of 2.9%; and ‘Other’ has a

frequency count of 1.4%.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that the three main reasons where commercial software show

weakness are ‘Lack of International Standards’, ‘Migration of Data’ and ‘Customized

report generation’.

7.27: Opinion about OSS in comparison with commercial software


Variables for Measurement: Respondents were offered thirteen reasons for ‘Opinion

about Open Source Software (OSS) in comparison with commercial software’. They are

OSS is complex in nature; OSS needs exhaustive training and expertise in IT; we cannot

hold anybody responsible in OSS; fixing of bugs and troubleshoots takes a lot of time;

OSS is not more effective than commercial/ in-house/ customized and other software; In

OSS no AMC is to be paid compared to commercial/ In-house/ customized and other

Software; forums, community support, online links and chats do solve the bugs and

errors; OSS has affected the market of Commercial, In-house, customized, and other

software; many libraries are now opting to OSS in comparison to commercial/ in-house/

customized and other software; OSS is more standard compliant than commercial/ In-

house/ customized and other Software; reports are very exhaustive in OSS compare to

commercial/ in-house/ customized and other software; OSS is more advance and capable

of meeting todays requirement than compare to commercial/ in-house/ customized other

software; and up-gradation and release of new versions keep OSS more relevant compare

to commercial/ in-house/ customized and other software. They were to rate each reason

on five point scale; 1- Extremely Dissatisfied, 2- Dissatisfied, 3- Neutral, 4- Extremely

Satisfied, 5- Satisfied.

283



H0: Perception of OSS does not differ in magnitude.

H1: Perception about OSS significantly differs in magnitude.


Table 7. 27.1: Test Statistics

χ2 (12) = 75.876, Pvalue = 0.000

Conclusion:



respondents attached to their opinion about OSS in comparison with commercial

software.

Table 7. 27.2: Rank and Mean Rank

Ranks Mean Rank

OSS is complex in nature 4.10

OSS needs exhaustive training and expertise in IT 7.72

We cannot hold anybody responsible in OSS 5.93

Fixing of bugs and troubleshoots takes a lot of time 5.43

OSS is not more effective than Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other Software 5.14

In OSS no AMC is to be paid as compared to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other Software 9.29

Forums, Community Support, online links and chats do solve the bugs and errors 8.69

OSS has affected the market of Commercial, In-house, Customized, and other software 8.55

Many libraries are now opting for OSS as compared to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other Software 7.86

N 31

Chi-Square 75.876

df 12

Asymp. Sig. .000

284



OSS is more standard compliant than Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other Software 7.34

Reports are very exhaustive in OSS compare to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other Software 7.43

OSS is more advance and capable of meeting todays requirement than compare to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized other Software

6.84

Up-gradation and release of new versions keep OSS more relevant compare to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other Software

6.66

From the ranks table 7.27.2 it is seen that …

1. In OSS no AMC is to be paid compared to commercial/ in-house/ customized and

other software has a mean rank of - 9.29

2. Forums, community support, online links and chats do solve the bugs and errors


3. OSS has affected the market of commercial, in-house, customized, and other

software has a mean rank of - 8.55

4. Many libraries are now opting to OSS as compared to commercial/ in-house/

customized and other software has a mean rank of - 7.86

5. OSS needs exhaustive training and expertise in IT has a mean rank of - 7.72

6. Reports are very exhaustive in OSS as compared to commercial/ in-house/

customized and other software has a mean rank of - 7.43

7. OSS is more standard compliant than commercial/ in-house/ customized and other


8. OSS is more advanced and capable of meeting today’s requirement as compared

to commercial/ in-house/ customized and other software has a mean rank of - 6.84

9. Up-gradation and release of new versions keeps OSS more relevant compare to

commercial/ in-house/ customized and other software has a mean rank of- 6.66

10. We cannot hold anybody responsible in Open Source Software (OSS) has mean

rank of - 5.93

11. Fixing of bugs and troubleshoots takes a lot of time has mean rank of 5.43

285



12. OSS is not more effective than commercial/ in-house/ customized and other

software has mean rank of - 5.14

13. OSS is complex in nature has a mean rank of - 4.10

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that the top three opinions about Open Source Software (OSS)

as compared with commercial software are;

1. In OSS no AMC is to be paid as compared to commercial/ In-house/ Customized etc.

Software

2. Forums, Community Support, Online links and Chats do solve bugs and errors and

3. OSS has affected the market of commercial, In-house, Customized etc. software.

286



7.28: Reasons for selecting/ migration to OSS


Variables for Measurement: Respondents were offered the ‘Reasons for selecting /

migration to OSS’. They are Decision of library committee; Your own decision; Not

satisfied with the commercial/earlier software; Convince with what OSS is offering;

Budget cuts and International Standards; Open Source Code, easy to modify,

customization, and availability of documentation; Quick installation, no maintenance, no

licensing fees, and relief from vendor locking; Concern about closing/merging of

proprietary software; Concern about unconditional hike in prices of proprietary software;

Technical support from community, forum, mailing list; Flexibility, Scalability and

Interoperability; Hardware Compatibility; Ability to fit to any type of library; User

friendly and web enabled; and Exhaustive and customize reports. They were to rate each

reason on five point scale; 1- Very Minor, 2- Minor, 3- Neutral, 4-Major, 5- Very Major.

H0: There is no difference in the importance respondents attached to the ‘Reasons for

selecting / migrating to OSS.’

H1: There is significant difference in the importance respondents attached the ‘Reasons

for selecting / migrating to OSS.’


PART 4: LIBRARIES USING OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE (OSS)

Following are the questions related with part four of the questionnaire which is for

“Libraries using Open Source Software (OSS)”. This part is mandatory to answer for

only second type of library using Open Source Software (OSS). There are total ten (10)

respondents for this part of the questionnaire.

287



Table 7.28.1 : Test Statistics

χ2 (14) = 64.228, Pvalue = 0.000

Conclusion:



respondents attached to the ‘Reasons for selecting / migration to OSS.’

Table 7.28.2 : Rank and Mean Rank

Ranks Mean Rank

Decision of library committee 3.45

Your own decision. 10.00

Not satisfied with the commercial/earlier software 6.32

Convince with what OSS is offering. 6.68

Budget cuts and International Standards 8.55

Open Source Code, easy to modify, customization, and availability of documentation 9.00

Quick installation, no maintenance, no licensing fees, and relief from vendor locking 8.86

Concern about closing/merging of proprietary software 4.36

Concern about unconditional hike in prices of proprietary software 4.86

Technical support from community, forum, mailing list. 10.77

Flexibility, Scalability and Interoperability 12.09


Ability to suit any type of library 7.82

User friendly and web enabled 6.82

Exhaustive and customize reports 9.95

N 10

Chi-Square 64.228

df 14

Asymp. Sig. .000

288




1. Flexibility, Scalability and Interoperability has a mean rank of - 12.09.

2. Technical support from community, forum, mailing list has a mean rank of -10.77


4. Your own decision has a mean rank of - 10

5. Exhaustive and customize reports has a mean rank of - 9.95

6. Open Source Code, easy to modify, customization, and availability of

documentation has a mean rank of - 9

7. Quick installation, no maintenance, no licensing fees, and relief from vendor

locking have a mean rank of - 8.86

8. Budget cuts and International Standard has a mean rank of - 8.55

9. Ability to suit any type of library has a mean rank of - 7.82

10. User friendly and web enabled has a mean rank of - 6.82

11. Convince with what OSS is offering has a mean rank of - 6.68

12. Not satisfied with commercial/earlier software has a mean rank of - 6.32

13. Concern about unconditional hike in prices of proprietary software has a mean

rank of - 4.86

14. Concern about closing/merging of proprietary software has a mean rank of - 4.36

15. Decision of library committee has a mean rank of - 3.45

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that the top three reasons for selecting/migration to Open Source Software (OSS) are;

1. Flexibility, Scalability and Interoperability

2. Technical support from community, forum, mailing list and

3. Hardware Compatibility

289



7.29: Reasons OSS not accepted in Indian conditions


Variables for Measurement: Respondents were offered various reasons for Open

Source Software (OSS) not accepted in Indian conditions. They are ‘Hard to convince the

authorities; No proper marketing; Concern about software and data security; Lack of

technical knowledge required to install and maintain; and Concern about long time

support, reliability, technical support, community support, vendor support, training and

documentation. They were to rate each reason on five point scale; 1- Very Minor, 2-

Minor, 3- Neutral, 4-Major, 5- Very Major.

H0: There is no difference in the importance respondents attached to various reasons

OSS being not accepted in Indian conditions.

H1: There is significant difference in the importance respondents attached to the various

reasons OSS being not accepted in Indian conditions.



χ2 (4) = 22.069, Pvalue = 0.000

Conclusion:



respondents attached to various reasons OSS being not accepted in Indian conditions.

N 10

Chi-Square 22.069

df 4

Asymp. Sig. .000

290




Ranks Mean Rank

Hard to convince the authorities 1.70

No proper marketing 2.80

Concern about software and data security 2.50

Lack of technical knowledge required to install and maintain 3.90

Concern about long time support, reliability, technical support, community support, vendor support, training and documentation 4.10


1. Concern about long time support, reliability, technical support, community support,

vendor support, training and documentation. has a mean rank of - 4.1

2. Lack of technical knowledge required to install and maintain has a mean rank of - 3.9

3. No proper marketing has a mean rank of - 2.8

4. Concern about software and data security has a mean rank of - 2.5

5. Hard to convince the authorities has a mean rank of - 1.7

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that the top three reasons Open Source Software (OSS) not accepted in Indian conditions are:

1. Concern about long time support

2. Reliability, technical support

3. Community support, vendor support’, ‘Training & documentation, Lack of

technical knowledge required to install and maintain’ and ‘No proper marketing.’

291



Table 7.30: OSS Operating System used in Library

Sr. No. Variables Response Category

Frequency Percentage

1. Unix/Linux

Beginner 0 0.0% Partially Known 1 10% Fully Known 2 20% Intent Learning 1 10% No Reply 6 60%

2. Ubuntu

Beginner 1 10% Partially Known 4 40% Fully Known 3 30% Intent Learning 1 10% No Reply 1 10%

3. Fedora

Beginner 0 0.0% Partially Known 2 20% Fully Known 0 0.0% Intent Learning 3 30% No Reply 5 50%

4. Suse

Beginner 0 0.0% Partially Known 1 10% Fully Known 0 0.0% Intent Learning 2 20% No Reply 7 70%

5. Dream Linux

Beginner 0 0.0% Partially Known 0 0.0% Fully Known 0 0.0% Intent Learning 1 10% No Reply 9 90%

6. Red Hat


7. CentOS

Beginner 0 0.0% Partially Known 0 0.0% Fully Known 0 0.0% Intent Learning 0 0.0% No Reply 10 100%

8. Debian

Beginner 0 0.0% Partially Known 1 10% Fully Known 0 0.0% Intent Learning 2 20%

292



No Reply 7 70%

9. OpenSUSE


10. OpenSolaris


11. GNU


Interpretation:

Unix/Linux:

10% of the respondent said they know using Unix/Linux partially; 20% said they know it

fully; 10 % said they intent learning; 60% had no comments. Very few respondents know

Unix/Linux and have intention to learn.

Ubuntu:

10 % of the respondent said they are beginners in using Ubuntu; 40% said they partially

know it; 30% said they fully know it; 10 % said they intent leaning; 10% offered no

response.

Observations:

A majority of librarians don’t know Ubuntu Operating System fully.

Fedora:

20% of the respondents said they partially know Fedora Operating System, 30% said they

intent learning and 50% not replied.

Observations:

293



A majority of librarians don’t know Fedora Operating System fully.

Suse:

10% of the respondent said they partially know Suse Operating System; 20% said they

intent leaning and 70% offered no reply.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of librarians don’t know Suse Operating System

fully.

Dream Linux:

10% of the respondent said they intent learning Dream Linux Operating System and 90%

offered no reply.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents don’t know Dream Linux

Operating System.

Red Hat:

20% of the respondent said they intent learning Red Hat Operating System and 80%

offered no reply.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents don’t know Red Hat Operating

System.

CentOS:

100% of the respondent offered no reply.

Observations: Hence it can be concluded that a majority of the respondents don’t know

CentOS Operating System.

294



Debian:

10% of the respondent said they fully know Debian Operating System; 20% said they

intent leaning; 70% offered no reply.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents are not aware with Debian

Operating System.

OpenSUSE:

10% of the respondent said they intent learning OpenSUSE operating system, 90%

offered no reply.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents are not aware with OpenSUSE

Operating System.

OpenSolaris:

20% of the respondent said they intent learning OpenSolaris Operating System; 80%

offered no reply.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents are not aware with the

OpenSolaris Operating System.

GNU:

20% of the respondent said they intent learning the GNU Operating System, 80% offered

no reply.

Observations: Hence it is concluded that a majority of the respondents are not aware

with the GNU Operating System.

295



Table 7.31: Competency with Open Source Software (OSS) Programming Language

Sr. No. Variables Response Category

Frequency Percentage

1. Perl

Beginner 1 10% Partially Known 1 10% Fully Known 0 0% Intent Learning 7 70% No Reply 1 10%

2. MySQL

Beginner 3 30% Partially Known 4 40% Fully Known 1 10% Intent Learning 2 20% No Reply 0 0.0%

3. PostgreSQL

Beginner 2 20% Partially Known 3 30% Fully Known 1 10% Intent Learning 4 40% No Reply 0 0.0%

4. Phyton

Beginner 1 10% Partially Known 0 0.0% Fully Known 0 0.0% Intent Learning 9 90% No Reply 0 0.0%

5. Ruby

Beginner 0 0.0% Partially Known 0 0.0% Fully Known 0 0.0% Intent Learning 10 100% No Reply 0 0.0%

6. Apache/ samba/ PHP

Beginner 0 0.0% Partially Known 1 10% Fully Known 0 0.0% Intent Learning 9 90% No Reply 0 0.0%

7. C

Beginner 1 10% Partially Known 1 10% Fully Known 0 0.0% Intent Learning 8 80% No Reply 0 0.0%

8. C++

Beginner 1 10% Partially Known 1 10% Fully Known 0 0.0% Intent Learning 8 80% No Reply 0 0.0%

9. Java Beginner 1 10%

296



Partially Known 0 0.0% Fully Known 2 20% Intent Learning 7 70% No Reply 0 0.0%

10. Javascript

Beginner 2 20% Partially Known 0 0.0% Fully Known 1 10% Intent Learning 7 70% No Reply 0 0.0%

11. Pascal

Beginner 0 0.0% Partially Known 1 10% Fully Known 0 0.0% Intent Learning 9 90% No Reply 0 0.0%

12. Tel

Beginner 0 0.0% Partially Known 0 0.0% Fully Known 0 0.0% Intent Learning 10 100% No Reply 0 0.0%

Interpretation:

Perl: 10 % of the respondent said they are ‘Beginners’ using Perl Programming

language; 10% said they ‘partially know it’, 70 % said they ‘intent leaning’. 10% ‘no

reply’.

Observations: A Majority of librarians don’t know Perl Programming language fully.

MySQL: 30 % of the respondents said they are beginners using MySQL; 40% said they

partially know it; 10% said they ‘fully know it’, 20 % said they ‘intent leaning’.

Observations: A majority of librarian don’t know MySQL Programming Language

fully.

PostgreSQL: 20 % of the respondent said they are the beginners using PostgreSQL; 30%

said they ‘partially know it’,10% said they ‘fully know it’, 40 % said they ‘intent

leaning’S.

297



Observations: A majority of librarians don’t know PostgreSQL Programming language

fully.

Phyton: 10 % of the respondents said they are beginners using Phyton, 90 % said they

‘intent leaning’.

Observations: A majority of librarians don’t know Phyton Programming language fully.

Ruby: 100% of the respondents said they ‘intent leaning’.

Observations: Hence it can be concluded that a majority of respondents don’t know

Ruby Programming language.

Apache/ Samba/ PHP: 10 % of the respondents said they are beginners using Apache/

Samba/ PHP; 90 % said they ‘intent leaning’.

Observations: A majority of librarians don’t know Apache/ Samba/ PHP Programming

Language fully.

C: 10 % of the respondents said they are beginners using C Programming languages,

10% said they ‘partially know it’, 80 % said they ‘intent leaning’.

Observations: A majority of librarian don’t know C Programming Languages fully.

C++: 10 % of the respondents said they are beginners using C++ Programming

Languages, 10% said they ‘partially know it’, 80 % said they ‘intent leaning’.

Observations: A majority of the librarian don’t know C++ Programming Languages

fully.

298



Java: 10 % of the respondents said they are beginners using Java, 20% said they ‘fully

know it’, 70 % said they ‘intent leaning’.

Observations: A majority of librarians don’t know the Java Programming Language

fully.

Javascript: 20 % of the respondents said they are beginners using Javascript, 10% said

they ‘fully know it’, 70 % said they’ intent leaning’.

Observations: A majority of librarian don’t know Javascript Programming Language

fully.

Pascal: 10% said they ‘partially know it’, 90 % said they ‘intent leaning’.

Observations: A majority of librarian don’t know Pascal Programming Language fully.

Tel: 100% of the respondents said they ‘intent leaning’.

Observations: Hence it can be concluded that a majority of respondents don’t know Tel

Operating System.

Observations: Hence it can be concluded that a majority of the respondents don’t know

Tel Operating System.

7.32: Satisfaction with the competency and functioning using OSS


Variables for Measurement: Respondents were offered the reasons for their satisfaction

with the competency and functioning with OSS. They are Library Management; Next

Generation OPACs; IR/ Digital Library; Content Management; Citation Management;

Document Management; Journal Management; PDF Document Editing Software; E-

299



Journal Archiving; Conference Management; Meta/Federated Searching; E-learning

Management; Office Suite; Desktop Publishing; Drawing Media Player; Photo Editor;

Image Editing and Graphic Design; Animation and Computer Graphics; Audio-Video

Recording of Talks and Editing; Web Browsing; Website Download; Scientific

Computation package for numerical computations; Wiki Management; Operating

System/ Mobile OS; Cloud Computing, Operating Systems; Web Conferencing;

Web/Language Programing; Instant Messaging; Screen Casting; Online Survey; Portable

Apps; Video Editing; Social Network; Project Management; Library Apps; Virtual

Machine; Plagiarism; OCR; and Anti-Virus. They were to rate each reason on five point

scale; 1- Never Experienced, 2- Very Poor, 3- Neutral, 4-fair, 5- Excellent.


of satisfaction with the competency and functioning with OSS.


various reasons of satisfaction with the competency and functioning with OSS.



χ2 (39) = 178.078, Pvalue = 0.000

Conclusion:

Since Pvalue (0.000) is less than level of significance (0.05) then null hypothesis is


respondents attached to the various reasons of satisfaction with the competency and

functioning with Open Source Software (OSS).

N 10

Chi-Square 178.078

df 39

Asymp. Sig. .000

300




Rank Mean Rank

Library Management 35.25

Next Generation OPACs 16.80

IR/ Digital Library 34.60

Content Management 32.10

Citation Management 29.70

Document Management 23.85

Journal Management 32.00

PDF Document Editing Software 24.35

e-Journal Archiving 21.05

Conference Management 18.90

Meta/Federated Searching 12.55

e-learning Management 29.60

Office Suite 29.35

Desktop Publishing 15.85

Drawing 14.70

Media Player 30.40

Photo Editor 21.70

Image Editing and Graphic Design 21.70

Animation and Computer Graphics 17.00

Audio-Video Recording of Talks and Editing 15.10

Web Browsing 28.95

Website Download 19.05

Scientific Computation package for numerical computations 18.35

Wiki Management 23.70

Operating System/ Mobile OS 28.20

Cloud Computing, Operating Systems 15.70

Web Conferencing 13.20

Web/Language Programing 15.85

301



Instant Messaging 11.85

Screen Casting 14.95

Online Survey 23.55

Portable Apps 14.50

Video Editing 18.10

Social Network 20.45

Project Management 14.85

Library Apps 16.30

Virtual Machine 12.75

Plagiarism 15.00

OCR 9.15

Anti-Virus 9.00


1. Library Management has a mean rank of - 35.25

2. IR/ Digital Library has a mean rank of - 34.6

3. Content Management has a mean rank of - 32.1

4. Journal Management has a mean rank of - 32

5. Media Player has a mean rank of - 30.4

6. Citation Management has a mean rank of - 29.7

7. e-learning Management has a mean rank of - 29.6

8. Office Suite has a mean rank of - 29.35

9. Web Browsing has a mean rank of - 28.95

10. Operating System/ Mobile OS has a mean rank of - 28.2

11. Document Management has a mean rank of - 23.85

12. Wiki Management has a mean rank of - 23.7

13. Online Survey has a mean rank of - 23.55

14. PDF Document Editing Software has a mean rank of - 24.35

15. Photo Editor has a mean rank of - 21.7

16. Image Editing and Graphic Design has a mean rank of - 21.7

17. e-Journal Archiving has a mean rank of - 21.05

302



18. Social Network has a mean rank of - 20.45

19. Website Download has a mean rank of - 19.05

20. Conference Management has a mean rank of - 18.9

21. Scientific computation package for numerical computations has a mean rank of-18.35

22. Video Editing has a mean rank of - 18.1

23. Animation and Computer Graphics has a mean rank of - 17

24. Next Generation OPACs has a mean rank of - 16.8

25. Library Apps has a mean rank of - 16.3

26. Desktop Publishing has a mean rank of - 15.85

27. Web/Language Programing has a mean rank of - 15.85

28. Cloud Computing, Operating Systems has a mean rank of - 15.7

29. Audio-Video Recording of Talks and Editing has a mean rank of - 15.1

30. Plagiarism has a mean rank of - 15

31. Screen Casting has a mean rank of - 14.95

32. Project Management has a mean rank of - 14.85

33. Drawing has a mean rank of - 14.7

34. Portable Apps has a mean rank of - 14.5

35. Web Conferencing has a mean rank of - 13.2

36. Virtual Machine has a mean rank of - 12.75

37. Meta/Federated Searching has a mean rank of - 12.55

38. Instant Messaging has a mean rank of - 11.85

39. OCR has a mean rank of - 9.15

40. Anti-Virus has a mean rank of - 9

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that the top three reasons for satisfaction with the competency

and functioning with OSS are;

1. Library Management

2. IR/ Digital Library

3. Content Management

303



Table 7.33: Mode of Acquiring Knowledge about OSS


Through Seminar/ Conference 10 45.5%

Hands on practice through Workshops 10 45.5%

Training through software expert 2 9.1%

Total 22 100%

Interpretations:

From the above frequency table 7.33, it is observed that ‘Through Seminar/ Conference’

has a frequency count of 45.5%; Hands on practice through Workshops has a frequency

count of 45.5%; Training through software expert has a frequency count of 9.1%;.

Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has not mention of such options.

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that the best means for libraries acquiring knowledge about

OSS is through seminar/ conference and hands on practice.

Table 7.34: Promotional Activity organized for awareness about OSS


Conference/ Seminar/ Workshop 7 46.7%

LDP Programs 2 13.3%

Lecture Series 3 20.0%

Group/ Forum/ Links 1 6.7%

Publication of Journal 1 6.7%


Total 15 100%

304



Interpretation:

From the above frequency table 7.34 it is seen that ‘Through Conference/ Seminar/

Workshop’ has a frequency count of 46.7%; ‘ LDP Programs’ has a frequency count of

13.3%, Lecture Series has a frequency count of 20.0%, Group/ Forum/ Links has a

frequency count 6.7%, Publication of Journal has a frequency count 6.7% and None of

the above has a frequency count 6.7%. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has

not mention such options.

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that most of the libraries organizes conference/ seminar/

workshop and lecture series as an activity for spreading awareness about OSS.

Table 7.35: Institute’s role for propagating OSS


Arranging training for staff and others regarding Installation, Maintenance, Troubleshooting and Backups.

8 61.5%

Putting across modifications. 1 7.7%

Joining groups/ forums/ links/ online discussions and giving solutions to the queries. 1 7.7%

Try my best to do all mention above. 1 7.7%

No reply 2 15.4%

Total 13 100%

Interpretation:

From the above frequency table 7.35, it can be seen that ‘Arranging training for staff and

others regarding Installation, Maintenance, troubleshooting and Backups’ has a frequency

count of 61.5%, Putting across modifications has a frequency count of 7.7%, Joining

groups/ forums/ links/ online discussions and giving solutions to the queries has a

frequency count of 7.7%, Try my best to do all mention above has a frequency 7.7%, No

305



reply has a frequency count 15.4%, Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has not

mention such options.

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that most of the libraries do play a role in ‘Arranging training

for staff and others regarding Installation, Maintenance, Troubleshooting and Backups’

Table 7.36: Management of Problems using OSS

S N Variables Response Category Frequency Percen

tage

1. Downloading & Installation

Self Management 4 40% Outsourcing 6 60% IT Expert/ Colleague/ Friend 0 0% Mailing list/Community/Forum/ Link

0 0%

Online Video/ Blog/Tutorial 0 0% Lib Live CD Workshops 0 0% Other 0 0%

2. Modifications, Customization


0 0%


3.

Hosting, Installation on Server & Client Machines


0 0%


4. Staff explanation & practice


0 0%

306




5. Data Migration & Back up


0 0%


6. Troubleshooting


0 0%


7. Downloading of patch files and plug-ins


0 0%


8. Security Measures


0 0%


9. Functioning of Modules


0 0%


307



10.

Technical Support


0 0%


11. Latest Updates


0 0%


Interpretation:

Downloading & Installation: 40% of the respondents said they are managing

themselves problems regarding Downloading & Installation; 60% said they are

Outsourcing.

Observations: A majority of librarians don’t know Downloading & Installation.

Modifications, Customization: 40% of the respondents said they are managing

themselves problems regarding Modifications, Customization; 60% said they are

Outsourcing.

Observations: A majority of librarians don’t know Modifications, Customization.

Hosting, Installation on Server & Client Machines: 30 % of the respondent said they

are managing themselves problems regarding Hosting; Installation on Server & Client

Machines, 70% said they are Outsourcing.

308



Observations: A majority of librarians don’t know Hosting; Installation on Server &

Client Machines.

Staff explanation & practice: 50 % of the respondents said they are managing

themselves problems regarding Staff explanation & practice, 50 % said they are

Outsourcing.

Observations: A Majority of librarians don’t know Staff explanation & practice.

Data Migration & Back up: 30 % of the respondents said they are ‘managing

themselves problems regarding Data Migration & Back up; 70% said they are

Outsourcing’.

Observations: A majority of librarians don’t know Data Migration & Back up.

Troubleshooting: 20 % of the respondents said they are ‘managing themselves problems

regarding Troubleshooting’, 70% said they are ‘Outsourcing, 10% said they have IT

Expert/ Colleague/ Friend’ to help them.

Observations: A majority of librarians don’t know Troubleshooting.

Downloading of patch files and plug-ins: 20 % of the respondents said they are

‘managing themselves problems regarding’ Downloading of patch files and plug-ins,

70% said they are ‘Outsourcing’, 10% said they have IT Expert/ Colleague/ Friend’ to

help them.

Observations: A Majority of librarians don’t know Downloading of patch files and plug-

ins.

309



Security Measures: 30 % of the respondents said they are ‘managing themselves

problems regarding Security Measures’, 60% said they are ‘Outsourcing’, 10 % said they

have IT Expert/ Colleague/ Friend’ to help them.

Observations: A majority of librarians don’t know Security Measures.

Functioning of Modules: 50 % of the respondents said they are ‘managing themselves

problems regarding Functioning of Modules’, 60% said they are ‘Outsourcing’.

Observations: A majority of librarians don’t know Functioning of Modules.

Technical Support: 20 % of the respondents said they are ‘managing themselves

problems regarding Technical Support’, 70% said they are ‘Outsourcing’, 10 % said they

have IT Expert/ Colleague/ Friend’ to help them.

Observations: A majority of librarians don’t know Technical Support.

Latest Updates: 30 % of the respondents said they are ‘managing themselves problems

regarding Latest Updates’, 60% said they are ‘Outsourcing’, 10 % said they have IT

Expert/ Colleague/ Friend’ to help them.

Observations: A majority of librarian don’t know about Latest Updates.

7.37: OSS observation


Variables for Measurement: Respondents were offered the reasons for observations on

Open Source Software. They are OSS is getting momentum in Indian conditions; OSS

shall be included in BLIS, MLIS, Syllabus or a practical paper to introduce; Library

Professionals are expected to contribute in creating awareness and conducting

workshops; OSS is good at budget constraint libraries and also extend technical support

at no cost; OSS increases competition among contemporaries and service providers; OSS

helps setting International Standards across the country; OSS is an alternative to

proprietary/ commercial software; Choosing OSS enables sharing of knowledge and

skills among professionals; and OSS is expandable and suitable to any type of library.

310



They were to rate each reason on five point scale; 1- Extremely Satisfied, 2- Satisfied, 3-

Neutral, 4- Extremely Dissatisfied, 5- Dissatisfied.

H0: There is no difference in the importance respondents attached to the observations on

Open Source Software.

H1: There is significant difference in the importance respondents attached to the

observations on Open Source Software.

Level of Significance is = α = 0.05


χ2 (8) = 37.014, Pvalue = 0.000

Conclusion:


rejected. Hence it is concluded that there is a significance difference in the importance

respondents attached to the observations on Open Source Software.


Rank Mean Rank

OSS is getting momentum in Indian conditions 3.60

OSS shall be included in BLIS, MLIS, Syllabus or a practical paper to introduce 2.60

Library Professionals are expected to contribute in creating awareness and conducting workshops 3.85

OSS is good at budget constraint libraries and also extends technical support at no cost. 6.20

N 10

Chi-Square 37.014

df 8

Asymp. Sig. .000

311



OSS increases competition among contemporaries and service providers. 5.70

OSS helps setting International Standards across the country 7.00

OSS is an alternative to proprietary/ commercial software 7.00

Choosing OSS enables sharing of knowledge and skills among professionals 4.30

OSS is expandable and suitable to any type of library 4.75


1. OSS helps setting International Standards across the country and OSS is an

alternative to proprietary/ commercial software have a mean rank of - 7

2. OSS is good at budget constraint libraries and also extend technical support at no cost


3. OSS increases competition among contemporaries and service providers has a mean

rank of - 5.7

4. OSS is expandable and suitable to any type of library has a mean rank of - 4.75

5. Choosing OSS enables sharing of knowledge and skills among professionals has a

mean rank of - 4.3

6. Library Professionals are expected to contribute in creating awareness and conducting

workshops has a mean rank of - 3.85

7. OSS is getting momentum in Indian conditions has a mean rank of - 3.6

8. OSS shall be included in BLIS, MLIS, Syllabus or a practical paper to introduce has a

mean rank of - 2.6

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that the top three reasons for OSS observations on OSS are:

1. OSS helps setting International Standards across the country and OSS is an

alternative to proprietary/ commercial software

2. OSS is good at budget constraint libraries and also extend technical support at no

cost and

3. OSS increases competition among contemporaries & service providers

312



7.38: Impact before and after adoption of OSS


Variables for Measurement: Respondents were offered the reasons to comment on

‘Impact before and after adoption of OSS.’ They are Saves Time Increases efficiency;

Quality Enhancement; More Options and Functions; Satisfies all needs; Suitable utility;

Saves AMC; Customization Possible; Less Errors; Speed; Searching Facilities; Backup

and Data Security. They were to rate each reason on five point scale; 1- Very Major, 2-

Major, 3- Neutral, 4- Minor, 5- Very Minor.

H0: Benefits of OSS do not differ in magnitude.

H1: Benefits of OSS significantly differ in magnitude.



χ2 (12) = 51.236, Pvalue = 0.000

Conclusion:

Since Pvalue (0.000) is less than the level of significance (0.05) so null hypothesis is

rejected. Thus it is concluded that there is a significance difference in the importance

respondents attached to the impact before and after the adoption of OSS.


Rank Mean Rank

Saves Time 5.35

Increases efficiency 7.10

Quality Enhancement 5.60

More Options and Functions 9.75

Satisfies all needs 8.20

N 10

Chi-Square 51.236

df 12

Asymp. Sig. .000

313



Suitable utility 4.80

Saves AMC 9.30

Customization Possible 9.85

Less Errors 3.45

Speed 4.75

Search Facilities 10.45

Backup 6.85

Data Security 5.55


1. Search Facilities has a mean rank of - 10.45

2. Customization Possible has a mean rank of - 9.85

3. More Options and Functions has a mean rank of - 9.75

4. Saves AMC has a mean rank of - 9.3

5. Satisfies all needs has a mean rank of - 8.2

6. Increases efficiency has a mean rank of - 7.1

7. Backup has a mean rank of - 6.85

8. Quality Enhancement has a mean rank of - 5.6

9. Data Security has a mean rank of - 5.55

10. Saves Time has a mean rank of - 5.35

11. Suitable utility has a mean rank of - 4.8

12. Speed has a mean rank of - 4.75

13. Less Errors has a mean rank of - 3.45

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that the top three reasons for the impact before and after the

adoption of OSS are;

1. Search Facilities

2. Customization Possible and

3. More Options and Functions

314



Table 7.39 Criteria for Software Selection


Suggested by Colleagues 1 9.1%

Selected by College/ Institution Authorities 6 54.5%

Seen the demonstration and agreed to purchase/ adopt. 3 27.3%

Other 1 9.1%

Total 11 100%

Interpretation:

From the above frequency table 7.39 it can be seen that ‘Suggested by Colleagues’ has a

frequency count of 9.1%; ‘Selected by College/ Institution Authorities’ has a frequency

count of 54.5%; ‘Seen the demonstration and agreed to purchase/ adopt’ has a frequency

count of 27.3%.

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that most of the respondents stressed that the criteria for the

software selection is done by Institution Authorities.

Part 5: Libraries using both OSS and Commercial, In-house Developed,

Customized, Freeware, Shareware and Public Domain Software.

Following are the questions related with part five of the questionnaire which is on

“Libraries using OSS and Commercial, In-house Developed, Customized, Freeware,

Shareware and Public Domain Software”. This part is mandatory to answer only for the

third type of library using OSS and Commercial software. There are total eleven

respondents for this part of the questionnaire.

315



Table 7.40: Software Selection Satisfaction


Yes 7 63.6%

No 4 36.4%

Total 11 100%

Interpretation:

The table 7.40 shows that 63.6% of the respondent said ‘Yes’ they are satisfied with the

selection and 36.4% of the respondent said ‘No’ they are not satisfied with the selection.

Hence it can be concluded that a majority of the respondents said they are satisfied with

the selection.

Table 7.41: Reasons for Software Selection (Yes)


It gives me all the reports required for inspection and covers all the functions. 1 14.3%

Support is powerful 24 x 7 3 42.9%

It responds quickly and it is user friendly 2 28.6%

Up-gradation is on regular bases 1 14.3%

Total 7 100%

Interpretation:

From the above frequency table 7.41 it can be seen that ‘It gives me all the reports

required for inspection and covers all the functions’ has a frequency count of 14.3%;

‘Support is powerful 24 x 7’ has a frequency count of 42.9%; ‘It responds quickly and it

is user friendly’ has a frequency count of 28.6%; ‘Up-gradation is on regular bases’ has a

frequency count of 14.37%. Wherever the frequency is zero (0) the table has no mention

of such options.

316



Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that a majority of the libraries which are using both OSS and

commercial and other software stressing that the software they are using support is

powerful and 24 x 7.

Table 7.42: Reasons for Software Selection (No)


Modifications are impossible unless considered and amended in next version 2 50%

Customization is limited 1 25%

Remote support is not satisfactory 1 25%

Total 4 100%

Interpretation:

From the above frequency table 7.42 it can be seen that ‘Modifications are impossible

unless considered and amended in the next version’ has a frequency count of 50%;

‘Customization is limited’ has a frequency count of 25% and ‘Remote support is not

satisfactory’ has a frequency count of 25%.

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that the reason for having no satisfaction with the software

selected is ‘Modifications are impossible unless considered and amended in the next

version’.

Table 7.43: Workshop/ Hands on Practice Attended


Yes 11 100%

No 0 0%

Total 11 100%

317



Interpretation:

The table 7.43 shows that 100% of the respondent said ‘Yes’ and 0% of the respondent

said ‘No’.

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that a majority of the respondents have not attended any Workshop/ Hands on Practice.

Table 7.44: Impact After Workshop Attended


Excellent and would like to implement in my library 8 72.7%

Require more exposure, training, and support of the authorities 3 27.3%

Total 11 100%

Interpretation:

From the above frequency table 7.44 it can be seen that ‘Excellent and would like to

implement in my library’ has a frequency count of 72.7% and ‘Require more exposure,

training, and support of the authorities’ has a frequency count of 27.3%.

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that a majority of the respondents would like to implement in

their libraries after attaining the workshop.

7.45: Reasons for selection/ migration to OSS


Variables for Measurement: Respondents were offered the following fifteen reasons for

selection/migration to OSS. They are; Decision of library committee; Your own decision;

Not satisfied with the commercial/earlier software; Convince with what OSS is offering;

Budget cuts and International Standards; Open Source Code, easy to modify,

318



customization, and availability of documentation; Quick installation, no maintenance, no

licensing fees, and relief from vendor locking; Concern about closing/merging of

proprietary software; Concern about unconditional hike in prices of proprietary software;

Technical support from community, forum, mailing list; Flexibility, Scalability and

Interoperability; Hardware Compatibility; Ability to fit to any type of library; User

friendly and web enabled; and Exhaustive and customize reports. They were to rate each

reason on five point scale; 1- Very Minor, 2- Minor, 3- Neutral, 4- Major, 5- Very Major.

H0: There is no difference in the importance respondents attached to the Reasons for

selection/migration to OSS.


reasons for selection/migration to OSS.



χ2 (14) = 57.103, Pvalue = 0.000

Conclusion:


rejected. Thus it is concluded that there is a significant difference in the importance

respondents attached to the ‘Reasons for selecting/migrating to OSS.’

N 11

Chi-Square 57.103

df 14

Asymp. Sig. .000

319




Rank Mean Rank

Decision of library committee 6.00

Your own decision 10.35

Not satisfied with the commercial/earlier software 7.55

Convinced with what OSS is offering 5.90

Budget cuts and International Standards 7.85

Open Source Code, easy to modify, customize, and availability of documentation 10.55

Quick installation, no maintenance, no licensing fees, and relief from vendor locking 11.20

Concern about closing/merging of proprietary software 4.70

Concern about unconditional hike in prices of proprietary software 4.15

Technical support from community, forum, mailing list 8.30

Flexibility, Scalability and Interoperability 10.05


Ability to suit any type of library 8.85

User friendly and web enabled 5.75

Exhaustive and customized reports 9.95


1. Quick installation, no maintenance, no licensing fees, and relief from vendor locking


2. Open Source Code, easy to modify, customization, and availability of documentation


3. Your own decision has a mean rank of -10.35

4. Flexibility, Scalability and Interoperability has a mean rank of -10.05

5. Exhaustive and customized reports has a mean rank of - 9.95


7. Ability to suit any type of library has a mean rank of - 8.85

8. Technical support from community, forum, and mailing list has a mean rank of - 8.3

320



9. Budget cuts and International Standard has a mean rank of - 7.85

10. Not satisfied with the commercial/earlier software has a mean rank of - 7.55

11. Decision of library committee has a mean rank of - 6

12. Convinced with what OSS is offering has a mean rank of - 5.9

13. User friendly and web enabled has a mean rank of - 5.75

14. Concern about closing/merging of proprietary software has a mean rank of -4.7

15. Concern about unconditional hike in prices of proprietary software has a mean rank

of -4.15

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that the top three reasons for selecting/ migrating to OSS are;

1. Quick installation, no maintenance, no licensing fees and relief from vendor locking

2. Open Source Code is easy to modify, customize and availability of documentation

3. Your own decision

Table 7.46: Management of Problems using OSS

Sr. No. Variables Response Category Freque

ncy Percentage

1. Downloading & Installation

Self-Management 3 27.3% Outsourcing 7 63.6% IT Expert/Colleagues/ Friend 1 9.1% Mailing List/ Community/ Forum/ Link 0 0.0% Online Video/ Blog/ Tutorial 0 0.0% Lib Live CD/ Workshop 0 0.0%

2.

Modifications, Customization


3.

Hosting, Installation on Server & Client

Self-Management 3 27.3% Outsourcing 7 63.6% IT Expert/Colleagues/ Friend 1 9.1% Mailing List/ Community/ Forum/ Link 0 0.0%

321



Machines Online Video/ Blog/ Tutorial 0 0.0% Lib Live CD/ Workshop 0 0.0%

4. Staff explanation & practice


5. Data Migration & Back up


6. Trouble shooting


7. Downloading of patch files and plug-ins


8. Security Measures


9. Functioning of Modules


10. Technical Support


11. Latest Self-Management 2 18.2%

322



Updates Outsourcing 8 72.7% IT Expert/Colleagues/ Friend 1 9.1% Mailing List/ Community/ Forum/ Link 0 0.0% Online Video/ Blog/ Tutorial 0 0.0% Lib Live CD/ Workshop 0 0.0%

Interpretation:

Downloading and Installation: Respondents were asked to comment on the level of

understanding of software using six response options. 27.3% of the respondent said they

managed themselves when any problem occurred using OSS, 63.6% said they

outsourced, 9.1% said they relied on IT expert/ colleagues/ friends.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that most of libraries outsourced when they faced any problems

handling OSS.

Modifications, Customization: Respondents were asked to comment on the level of

understanding of software using six response options. 18.2% of the respondents said they

managed themselves any problems occurring while using OSS; 72.7% said they

outsourced, and 9.1% said they relied on IT expert/ colleagues/ friends.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that most of the libraries outsourced when they faced any problems

handling OSS.

Hosting, Installation on Server & Client Machines: Respondents were asked to

comment on the level of understanding of software using six response options. 27.3% of

the respondents said they managed themselves any problems occurring using OSS; 63.6%

said they outsourced, 9.1% said they relied on IT expert/ colleagues/ friends.

Observations:

323




handling OSS.

Staff explanation & practice: Respondents were asked to comment on the level of


managed themselves any problems occurring using OSS; 45.5 % said they outsourced;

18.2% said they relied on IT expert/ colleagues/ friends.

Observations:


handling OSS.

Data Migration & Back up: Respondents were asked to comment on the level of


manage themselves when any problem occurring using OSS, 72.7% said they outsource,

and 9.1% said they relied on IT expert/ colleagues/ friends.

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that most of the libraries outsourced when they face any problem

handling OSS.

Troubleshooting: Respondents were asked to comment on level of understanding of

software using six response options. 18.2% of the respondent said they manage

themselves when any problem occurred while using Open Source Software (OSS), 72.7%

said they outsource, and 9.1% said they relied on IT expert/ colleagues/ friends.

Observations:


handling OSS.

324



Downloading of patch files and plug-ins: Respondents were asked to comment on level

of understanding of software using six response options.18.2% of the respondent said

they manage themselves when any problem occurred using OSS, 72.7% said they

outsource, and 9.1% said they relied on IT expert/ colleagues/ friends.

Observations:


handling OSS.

Security Measures: Respondents were asked to comment on level of understanding of

software using six response options. 18.2% of the respondent said they manage

themselves when any problems occurring using Open Source Software (OSS), 72.7%

said they outsource, and 9.1% said they relied on IT expert/ colleagues/ friends.

Observations:


handling OSS.

Functioning of Modules: Respondents were asked to comment on the level of

understanding of software by using six options. 27.3% of the respondents said they

managed themselves any problems occurring using OSS; 54.5% said they outsource and


Observations:


handling OSS.

Technical Support: Respondents were asked to comment on the level of understanding

of software using six response options. 18.2% of the respondent said they manage

themselves any problems occurring using OSS;72.7% said they outsource, and 9.1% said

they relied on IT expert/ colleagues/ friends.

325



Observations:


handling OSS.

Latest Updates: Respondents were asked to comment on the level of understanding of

software using six response options. 18.2% of the respondents said they managed

themselves when any problem occurred while using OSS; 72.7% said they outsource and


Observations:


handling OSS.

7.47: OSS observations


Variables for Measurement: Respondents were offered the reasons for ‘OSS

Observations’. They are OSS is getting momentum in Indian conditions; OSS shall be

included in BLIS, MLIS, Syllabus or a practical paper to introduce; Library Professionals

are expected to contribute in creating awareness and conducting workshops; OSS is good

at budget constraint libraries and also extend technical support at no cost; OSS increases

competition among contemporaries and service providers; OSS helps setting International

Standards across the country; OSS is an alternative to proprietary/ commercial software;

Choosing OSS enables sharing of knowledge and skills among professionals; OSS is

expandable and suitable to any type of libraries; The security of data and software is

reliable than proprietary/ commercial software; and Indian Libraries are advised to come

up with network model for OSS. They were to rate each reason on five point scale; 1-

Dissatisfied, 2- Extremely Dissatisfied, 3- Neutral, 4- Satisfied, 5- Extremely

Dissatisfied.

H0: Perception of OSS do not differ in magnitude.

H1: Perception about OSS significantly differs in magnitude.

326



Level of Significance is = α = 0.05


χ2 (10) = 23.088, P value = 0.010

Conclusion:

Since Pvalue (0.010) is less than level of significance (0.05) hence null hypothesis is

rejected. Thus it is concluded that there is a significant difference in the importance

respondents attached to ‘OSS Observations’.


Rank Mean Rank

OSS is getting momentum in Indian conditions 6.20

OSS shall be included in BLIS, MLIS, Syllabus or a practical paper to introduce

3.65

Library Professionals are expected to contribute in creating awareness and conducting workshops

4.65

OSS is good at budget constraint libraries and also extends technical support at no cost

7.15

OSS increases competition among contemporaries and service providers

6.70

OSS helps setting International Standards across the country

7.70

OSS is an alternative to proprietary/ commercial software 7.25

Choosing OSS enables sharing of knowledge and skills among professionals

6.25

N 11

Chi-Square 23.088

df 10

Asymp. Sig. .010

327



OSS is expandable and suitable to any type of libraries 6.25

The security of data and software is reliable than proprietary/ commercial software

5.15

Indian Libraries are advised to come up with network model for OSS

5.05


1. OSS helps setting International Standards across the country has a mean rank of - 7.7

2. OSS is an alternative to proprietary/ commercial software has a mean rank of - 7.25

3. OSS is good at budget constrained libraries and also extends technical support at no

cost has a mean rank of - 7.15

4. OSS increases competition among contemporaries and service providers has a mean

rank of - 6.7

5. Choosing OSS enables sharing of knowledge and skills among professionals has a

mean rank of - 6.25

6. OSS is gaining and suitable to any type of libraries has a mean rank of - 6.25

7. OSS is getting momentum in Indian conditions has a mean rank of - 6.2

8. Security of data and software is reliable than proprietary/ commercial software has a

mean rank of - 5.15

9. Indian Libraries are advised to come up with network model for Open Source

Software (OSS) has a mean rank of - 5.05

10. Library Professionals are expected to contribute in creating awareness and conducting

workshops has a mean rank of - 4.65

11. OSS shall be included in BLIS, MLIS, Syllabus or a practical paper to introduce has a

mean rank of - 3.65

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that the top three ‘OSS Observations are;

1.OSS helps setting International Standards across the country,

2. OSS is an alternative to proprietary/ commercial software,

3. OSS is good at budget constrained libraries and extends technical support at no cost.

328



7.48: Impact before and after adoption of OSS


Variables for Measurement: Respondents were offered the thirteen reasons for ‘Impact

before and after adoption of OSS’. They are saves time; increases efficiency; quality

enhancement; more options and functions; satisfies all needs; suitable utility; saves

AMC; customization possible; less errors; speed; searching facilities; backup and data

security. They were to rate each reason on five point scale; 1- Very Minor, 2- Minor, 3-

Neutral, 4- Major, 5- Very Major.





χ2 (12) = 59.397, P value = 0.000

Conclusion:

Since Pvalue (0.000) is less than level of significance (0.05) hence null hypothesis is


respondents attached to the ‘Impact before and after adoption of (OSS).’

N 11

Chi-Square 59.397

df 12

Asymp. Sig. .000

329




Rank

Mean Rank

Saves Time 6.68

Increases efficiency 6.74

Quality Enhancement 6.62

More Options and Functions 7.53

Satisfies all needs 7.29

Suitable utility 7.16

Saves AMC 7.53

Customization Possible 7.18

Less Errors 6.56

Speed 6.81

Searching Facilities 7.17

Backup 6.92

Data Security 6.81

From the ranks table it can be observed:

1. Saves AMC has a mean rank of - 7.53

2. More Option and Function has a mean rank of - 7.53

3. Satisfies all need has a mean rank of - 7.29

4. Customization Possible has a mean rank of - 7.18

5. Searching Facilities has a mean rank of - 7.17

6. Suitable utility has a mean rank of - 7.16

7. Backup has a mean rank of - 6.92

8. Speed has a mean rank of - 6.81

9. Data Security has a mean rank of - 6.81

10. Increases efficiency has a mean rank of - 6.74

11. Saves Time has a mean rank of - 6.68

12. Quality Enhancement has a mean rank of - 6.62

13. Less Errors has a mean rank of - 6.56

330



Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that the top three reasons for impact before and after adoption

of OSS are:

1. Saves AMC

2. More option and function

3. Satisfies all needs.’

Table 7.49 : Opinions about OSS replace the Commercial and etc. Software


Partially agree 2 18.2%

Fully agree 8 72.7%

Fully Disagree 1 9.1%

Total 11 100% Interpretation:

The table 7.49 shows that 18.2% of the respondents said they partially agree; 72.7% of

the respondents said that they are fully agree, 9.1% said they fully disagree. Wherever the

frequency is zero (0) the table has not mention such options.

Observations:

Observations: Hence it is concluded that a majority of the librarians agreed that in the

near future OSS will replace commercial and other software.

Table 7.50: Reasons for using both OSS and Commercial and other software


There is no necessity apart from Library Management software to use other software 1 5.9%

I am/ Library is not equipped/ trained using other OSS 6 35.3%

The management had already purchased other than OSS 1 5.9%

I am comfortable with certain OSS and using it 2 11.8%

331



I am running certain OSS on windows and comfortable in using both OSS and Commercial and etc. software

5 29.4%

I am using the dual operating system and managing both (OSS and Commercial) software successfully

2 11.8%

Total 17 100%

Interpretation:

From the table 7.50 it is seen that ‘There is no necessity apart from Library Management

software to use other software’ has a frequency count of 5.9%,;‘I am/ Library is not

equipped/ trained using other OSS’ has a frequency count of 35.3%,;‘The management

had already purchased other than OSS’ has a frequency count of 5.9%,; ‘I am

comfortable with certain OSS and using it’ has a frequency count of 11.8%; ‘I am

running certain OSS on windows and comfortable in using both OSS and Commercial

and other software’ has a frequency count of 29.4% and ‘I am using the dual operating

system and managing both (OSS and Commercial) software successfully’ has a

frequency count of 11.8%.

Observations:

Hence it can be concluded that a majority of the respondents said ‘I am/ Library is not

equipped/ trained using other OSS’ and ‘I am running certain OSS on windows and

comfortable in using both OSS and Commercial and other software’.

7.51: Opinions about the use of OSS


Variables for Measurement: Respondents were offered the twelve reasons for

‘Opinions about use of OSS’. They are; OSS is complex in nature; OSS needs exhaustive

training and expertise in IT; We cannot hold anybody responsible in OSS; Fixing of bugs

and troubleshoots takes a lot of time ; OSS is not more effective than Commercial/ In-

house/ Customized and other Software; In OSS no AMC is to be paid compared to

Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other Software ; Forums, Community Support,

332



online links and chats do solve the bugs and errors; OSS has affected the market of

Commercial, In-house, Customized, and other software ; Many libraries are now opting

to OSS in comparison to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other Software; OSS is

more standard compliant than Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other Software;

Reports are very exhaustive in OSS compare to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and

other Software; OSS is more advance and capable of meeting todays requirement than

compare to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized other Software; and Up-gradation and

release of new versions keep OSS more relevant compare to Commercial/ In-house/

Customized and other Software. They were to rate each reason on five point scale; 1-

Neither Agree nor Disagree, 2- Partially Disagree, 3- Fully Disagree, 4- Partially Agree,

5- Fully Agree.





χ2 (12) = 79.270 P value = 0.000

Conclusion:

Since Pvalue (0.000) is less than level of significance (0.05) then null hypothesis is


respondents attached to the ‘Opinions about use of OSS’.


Rank Mean Rank

OSS is complex in nature 2.85

OSS needs exhaustive training and expertise in IT 7.60

N 11

Chi-Square 79.270

df 12

Asymp. Sig. .000

333



We cannot hold anybody responsible in OSS 5.95

Fixing of bugs and troubleshoots takes a lot of time 2.75

OSS is not more effective than Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other Software

3.50

In OSS no AMC is to be paid compared to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other Software

8.75

Forums, Community Support, online links and chats do solve the bugs and errors

8.75

OSS has affected the market of Commercial, In-house, Customized, and other software

8.75

Many libraries are now opting to OSS in comparison to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other Software

8.25

OSS is more standard compliant than Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other Software

8.75

Reports are very exhaustive in OSS compare to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other Software

8.75

OSS is more advance and capable of meeting todays requirement than compare to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized other Software

7.60

Up-gradation and release of new versions keep OSS more relevant compare to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other Software

8.75

From the ranks table 7.51.2 it can be observed:




other software has a mean rank of - 8.75





5. Reports are very exhaustive in OSS compare to commercial/ in-house/ customized

and other software has a mean rank of - 8.75

6. Up-gradation and release of new versions keep OSS more relevant compare to

commercial/ in-house/ customized and other software has a mean rank of - 8.75

334



7. Many libraries are now opting to OSS in comparison to commercial/ in-house/

customized and other Software has a mean rank of - 8.25

8. OSS is more advance and capable of meeting todays requirement than compare to

commercial/ in-house/ customized other software has a mean rank of - 7.6

9. OSS needs exhaustive training and expertise in IT has a mean rank of - 7.6

10. We cannot hold anybody responsible in OSS has a mean rank of - 5.95

11. OSS is not more effective than commercial/ in-house/ customized and other


12. OSS is complex in nature has a mean rank of - 2.85

13. Fixing of bugs and troubleshoots takes a lot of time has a mean rank of - 2.75

Observations:

Hence it is concluded that top three ‘Opinions about OSS’ are;



other software


software


software

5. Reports are very exhaustive in OSS compare to commercial/ in-house/ customized

and other software

6. Up-gradation and release of new versions keep OSS more relevant compare to

commercial/ in-house/ customized and other software

7. Many libraries are now opting to OSS in comparison to commercial/ in-house/

customized and other Software

8. OSS is more advance and capable of meeting todays requirement than compare to

commercial/ in-house/ customized other software

9. OSS needs exhaustive training and expertise in IT

335



TESTING OF HYPOTHESES

Hypothesis 1: Not many libraries (less than 50%) use OSS.

Statistical Test: Sign Binomial Test

Variable and Measurement:

Librarian were asked to comment on the software they use and out of fifty-two librarians

forty-two said they used Commercial, In-house Developed, Customized, Freeware,

Shareware, and Public Domain Software, ten said OSS. Hence the proportion of libraries

using OSS is 19 %. A sign binomial test was performed for significance using

IBMSPSS 21. Test proportion was t aken as 50% s ince more t han 50% of favorable

responses suggest more agreeableness towards the said category.

H0: The proportion of libraries using OSS is ≥ 0.5

H1: The proportion of libraries using OSS is < 0.5

Table 7.52: Sign Binomial Test

Category N Observed Prop.

Test Prop.

Exact Sig. (2-tailed)

Type of Software

Group 1 Only OSS 10 .19 .50 .000

Group 2 Only Commercial Software

42 .81

Total 52 1.00

Conclusion:

Observed proportion .19, test proportion .5, P-Value =0.000. Since P-Value 0.000 is

less than the level of significance 0.05 hence null hypotheses is rejected.

Observations:

Thus it is concluded that the proportion of libraries using OSS is less than 50%.

336



Hypothesis 2: Only those librarians adopt Open Source Software who are more tech

savvy and aware of open source benefits.

Statistical Test: Sign Binomial Test

Variable and Measurement: Adoptions of OSS in libraries suggest librarians of those

libraries are more tech savvy. Out of fifty-two librarians forty-two said they use

Commercial, In-house Developed, Customized, Freeware, Shareware, and Public Domain

Software and ten said OSS. Hence the proportion of libraries using OSS is 19 %. A

sign binomial test was performed for significance using IBMSPSS 21. Test proportion

was taken as 50% since more t han 50 % of favorable responses suggest more

agreeableness towards the said category.

H0: The proportion of libraries using OSS is ≥ 0.5

H1: The proportion of libraries using OSS is < 0 .5

Table 7.53: Sign Binomial Test

Category N Observed Prop. Test Prop. Exact Sig.

(2-tailed)

Type of Software

Group 1 Only OSS 10 .19 .50 .000

Group 2 Only Commercial Software

42 .81

Total 52 1.00

Conclusion:

Observed proportion .19, test proportion .5, P-Value =0.000. Since P-Value 0.000 is

less than the level of significance 0.05 hence null hypotheses is rejected.

Observations:

Thus it is concluded that the proportion of libraries using OSS is less than 50%. It means

libraries that are using commercial software are less tech savvy.

**************************

337

CHAPTER VIII

FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION



8.2.1 Findings based on Review of Literature 338

8.2.2 Findings based on Data Analysis and Interpretations 340

8.2.3 Findings based on Librarians’ view 349

8.2.4 From the Researcher’s Desk 350

8.2.5 Findings based on Objectives of the study 351

8.3 Suggestions 352

8.4 Areas for further Research 357

Summary 358

CHAPTER VIII FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION

8.1. INTRODUCTION

The area of study is the use and impact of OSS on academic and research libraries across

India. The intention of this study is to assess up to what extent OSS is being utilized in

academic and research institutions of India and for that a web-based questionnaire was

distributed to libraries through e-mails. The responses received from the librarians

suggest that OSS is less popular among libraries due to lack of proper guidance, training

and poor marketing of OSS products. There are many more reasons and

misunderstanding and that contribute that OSS is not accepted in the Indian libraries. In

this chapter, the summary of many such findings, suggestions, and conclusions with

further areas of research are mentioned.

8.2. FINDINGS

The study reveals that OSS is not prevalent in India and many academic and research

libraries are still reluctant about the use of OSS. Followings are the major and eye-

opening findings based on literature review, data analysis, librarian’s views, and testing

of null hypotheses and objectives.

8.2.1. FINDINGS BASED ON REVIEW OF LITERATURE

After careful review of the literature, it has been revealed that libraries are the centers of

learning and help build knowledge societies. Libraries earlier managed the system

manually and required a lot of support staff, time, and space. The advent of information

technology not only bridges the gap between local, national and global but also the entire

system revolutionize from library automation to digitalization of the contents. The

scientific and technological knowledge got a new roof in the form of the Internet and that

works as a virtual library. Libraries don’t have any choice but to embrace modern

information and communication technologies and adapt to these changes to meet their

users’ changing needs and growing expectations. As far as library automation is

concerned, it erased the lengthy process of handling library and made circulation easy,

338


Chapter 8: Findings, Suggestions & Conclusion

OPAC, reservation of library resources, check out and check in, security systems like

RFID, barcode, stock verification, acquisition, serial control, and budget at the fingertips.

There is no need to maintain registers and files of records of library materials and appoint

separate staff to maintain different records but the single input of the record in computer

gives results quickly and efficiently. Selection of automation software is also the biggest

challenge due to the availability of many software vendors. After the library automation,

digitalization of the content started the process of digitalization of libraries created an e-

platform to the users community. Consortiums like UGC-INFONET, INDEST, CSIR e-

Journals, CeRA , IIM’s Library Consortia, FORSA, ICICI Knowledge Park, ISRO,

UGC- DAE consortium for scientific research, information systems like NISSAT and

library networks like INFLIBNET, DELNET, and CALIBNET, ease not only space

problems but also reduce unnecessary investment of funds and extend knowledge under

one umbrella. The application of information technology becomes the greatest challenge

to library professionals in terms of its management and learning of new techniques.

Whether it is library automation or publishing of contents on the Internet, all require

software. There are various types and nature of software available for the user

community, for e.g. Proprietary (Commercial), Shareware, Freeware, Public Domain, and

Free/ OSS (FOSS). It is OSS which made significant grounds compare to other software.

It has not only successfully broken the shackles and barriers of software monopoly and

made the source code public but also made license copyleft. OSS can be used freely

without having to pay license fee to its developers. Users can freely download, install and

use the software. Under the GPL (General Public License) the software can be changed

and enhanced but the new version must also be released under the same terms. It does not

discriminate against any person, group, field or endeavor. Library and information

centers are no exception where OSS has developed standardized products. For library

automation purpose Koha and for content development purpose DSpace are widely

popular software developed by OSS community. The community does not stop here and

there are many other such software available which are designed to meet today’s growing

demands .Any product is bundled with risk factor and there are risk factors associated

with OSS also. But if it is properly approached and planned it can be eradicated.

339



8.2.2. FINDINGS BASED ON DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Staff Qualification: It has been noticed from responses received that National Institute for

Pomegranate said they don’t have qualified staff. The institutes viz. CSIR-National

Chemical Laboratory, University of Kashmir, Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences,

National Research Centre for Pomegranate, and Gauhati University, said they don’t have

qualified staff. The qualified staff is the strength and key of any library. Institutes of

repute must not keep operating with unqualified staff and it will affect the working of the

library where imparting of better services to the user will get hampered.

Communication Technologies: Out of fifty-two respondents, one library Dayalbadgh

Educational Institute (Deemed University) is providing mobile and cloud computing

technology both and forty-three libraries do not provide any of the communication

technology. These are modern technologies and should be adopted and provided by the

national research centers, central and state universities at least.

Library Automation and status of Automation: Out of fifty-two respondents, all the

libraries have automated their library system. Whereas thirty-nine (75%) are fully

automated and thirteen (25%) of the libraries have partially achieved the automation

status. In this age of ICT, every library must attain the full automation status. One of the

greatest fascinating attributes of the software that it enters single record from one

terminal and it will give a variety of results from the single entry which has made. It

increases output, cost reduction, consistency, and reliability are the major keys where

libraries must switch to automation of library. It supports managing varied resources and

provides better and broader access to resources. Even financially unstable library has no

excuse in the presence of OSS where downloading and installation of the software and

licensing fees requires almost no cost. The only requirement is that librarians are

supposed to master the software installation through joining some courses or attaining

workshop or hands-on practice.

Types of Software used by libraries: It is quite surprising to note that a majority of

libraries thirty-one (59.6%) are using commercial software. Whereas a study shows that

340



OSS is ahead of commercial software in terms of price, standards, reports, customization,

installations, quick solutions, release of new version and updates.

Operating System: Many libraries are using both commercial and OSS operating systems.

They are Dayalbadh Educational Institute (Deemed University), Aligarh Muslim

University, Narse Monjhe Institute of Management Sciences, CSIR-National Chemical

Laboratory - Pune, Indian Institute of Management, Centre for the Study of Developing

Societies, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Symbiosis Institute of

Technology, Mysore University and Indian Institute of Technology - Bombay. Whereas

fifty-two (82.5%) of the respondents said they are using Windows (this includes both

OSes users) and ten (15.9%) said Linux. OSS is offering Operating System, Automation,

Digital Library and other required software for libraries without charging any licensing

fees and more over source code is free still many libraries are using commercial software.

It shows that still there is reluctance in library professionals from all quarters which is not

allowing them to rely on OSS.

Currently software in library: From the responses, it is clear that most of the libraries are

using only Library Automation and Digital Library/ Institutional Repository software as

compared to other remaining useful software.

Cost benefits of software selected for library: Forty-eight (92.3%) of the respondents said

‘Yes’, the software selected is the most cost effective. But it is not, since a majority of the

respondents thirty-one out of fifty-two declare that they are commercial libraries, thirty-

six libraries are using Windows Operating System and sixteen libraries are using LIBSYS

(Library Management) commercial software and that costs lacs in rupees. Whereas if

they use Open Source based software, at least, they will be able to save (90%) of what

they are spending using commercial software.

OSS without licensing fees: It is also to be noted here that most of the respondents knew

that OSS is without licensing fees but still prefer using commercial software. Not

charging licensing fees does not mean that OSS is not effective. In fact, it is the strongest

341



feature of OSS community that they don’t want people at large to be deprived of using

software at affordable price and end the monopoly of software vendors.

Selection of OSS for Library: When enquired about awareness on OSS, thirty-eight

(73.1%) librarians said they know Koha (Library Management), thirty-eight (70.4%)

DSpace (Digital Library/ IR), twenty-two (40.7%) - Joomla (Content Management),

twenty-four (46.2%) - Zotero(Citation Management), twenty-six (48.1%) - Open Journal

System (Journal Management), thirty-six (66.7%) - Moodel (e-Learning Management

System), thirty-six (66.7%) -LiberOffice (Office Suite), thirty-six (66.7%) - VLC (Media

Player), thirty-one (57.4%) Google Chrome (Web Browser), twenty-three (42.6%)

Ubuntu (Operating System), forth-seven (87.0%) Other (Plagiarism). From the twenty

given software only eleven OSS, librarians are aware of it. This shows that a majority of

software is unknown to them.

Other OSS useful for libraries: Out of twenty-four other OSS which could be useful for

librarians to impart better services to their patrons mention, only one software was given

preference i.e. thirty-six (66.7%) Android (Mobile Operating System). Remaining

twenty-three OSS librarians do not have any knowledge and they are not aware of it.

Adoption of Other and Known OSS: When enquired about the adoption of OSS for their

libraries, out of fifty-two respondent librarians, thirty-seven (71.15%) said they would

like to adopt/ implement in their library. This shows that respondent librarians are ready

for a change and they would like to implement OSS in their libraries.

Reasons for adoption of OSS (with ‘yes’ and ‘no’ option): “Scalability and

Interoperability, International Standards and Availability of training, workshop, forum,

community, guidance and documentation” are the top three reasons for libraries who

want to adopt OSS. Those who do not want to adopt OSS for their libraries give top three

reasons such as “Lack of technical knowledge required to install and maintain, No vendor

policy and no accountability and concern about software & data security”. Those who

have said ‘yes’ and preferred certain options are true that OSS is bundle with these

342



qualities. As far as respondents who said ‘no’ are not prepared and equipped adopting

OSS. If they work on lacuna their confidence will increase and even they will be capable

of implementing OSS in their libraries.

Software Selection Criteria: This question was asked to that type of libraries who are

using Proprietary/ Commercial, In-house Developed, Customized, Freeware, Shareware,

and Public Domain Software. This is to inquire about what is the ‘criteria for software

selection; eighteen (52.9%) said the software is ‘Selected by College/ Institutions

authorities’. Whereas it is the responsibility of subject expert along with an IT expert in

conjugation as they are more capable taking this decision. It is recommended that

authorities should not interfere in software selection process and seek expert’s advice

rather imposing their own decision; else it will have an adverse effect, as software won’t

be capable of meeting library’s requirements.

Satisfaction with the Selection of Software (with ‘yes’ and ‘no’ option): Those

respondents who said ‘yes’ eighteen (58%), said the ‘Support is powerful 24 x 7’ and ‘It

gives me all the reports required for inspection and covers all the functions’ are the main

reasons that they are satisfied with the selection and those respondents said ‘no’ thirteen

(42%) agreed that ‘No up-gradation and no online support’ is the main reason that they

are not satisfied with. In OSS there are many forums, communities, links, videos, blogs,

tutorials, manuals, and of course colleagues and IT experts ready to support in case of

emergency. Open Source community is a very active and upgrades their versions faster in

comparison with other software providers.

Facts about OSS: Majority of the respondents 22 (31.9%) said that they know the fact

that in OSS ‘Source code is open’. It means further modifications are possible even an

institution can modify OSS according to their needs. Commercial software keeps their

source code closed whereas OSS the source code open and invites any individual to

contribute developing the software. Therefore OSS is community based software.

343



Workshop/ hands-on practice attended and impact after attendance: Out of thirty-one

respondents, twenty (64.5%) said they have attended the workshop / hands-on practice on

OSS and eleven (28.9%) said the impact after the workshop is ‘Excellent and would like

to implement in my library’. These thirty-one respondents are using commercial software

and after workshop/ hands-on practice, they are expressing a positive concern that shows

they are not satisfied with the commercial software and they would like to switch to OSS.

Opinion about OSS replaces Commercial and others software in future: Out of thirty-one

respondents a majority of the respondents twelve (38.7%) said they fully agree that OSS

will replace commercial and others software in near future. This decision is based on

attending workshops and the impact after the workshop may claim that OSS has much

substance than commercial software. It is the strength of OSS that they feel will

supersede commercial software and the future belongs to it.

Improvements in Commercial Software: The respondents’ top three responses regarding

improvement in commercial software suggest that there is a deficiency in commercial

software. Commercial software vendors when unveil their products restrict certain

options and demand extra money when it comes to migration of data and customization

of reports. Whereas in OSS, migration of data is possible and one can generate many

reports. OSS is hardware compatible and International Standard compliant.

Opinion about OSS in comparison with commercial and other software: Respondents

were inquired regarding their opinion about OSS as compared to commercial and others

software and three top responses out of thirteen were found. Respondents agreed that in

OSS no AMC is to be paid, forums, community and online links do solve bugs and errors

and OSS has affected the market for commercial software, are the major features of OSS

where it works better than commercial software. Commercial software charge heavily

providing the above-mentioned services whereas OSS charges nothing, hence we can

conclude that OSS has got an edge over commercial software.

Reasons for selecting/ migrating to OSS: The top three reasons for selecting/migrating to

OSS are ‘Flexibility, Scalability and Interoperability’, ‘Technical support from

344



community, forum, mailing list’ and ‘Hardware Compatibility’. Flexibility in generation

of reports, Scalability means the OSS can handle growing demands of users and give a

solution to any type of library. Interoperability and hardware compatibility is one such

feature in OSS, that it is compatible with any kind of hardware and product and these are

the main reasons lacking in commercial software. Thus respondents would like to switch

to OSS.

Reasons OSS is not widely accepted in Indian conditions: Respondents opted with these

top three reasons OSS not widely accepted in India they are ‘Concern about long time

support’ ‘reliability, technical support’ ‘community support, vendor support, training &

documentation’, ‘Lack of technical knowledge required to install and maintain’ and ‘No

proper marketing’. This is a myth regarding OSS. The community support is very strong

and there are many videos and online support. As far as technical knowledge is concern,

it is up to the librarians to attend maximum workshops and training of OSS.

OSS Operating System use in Library: Ten out of nine respondents said either they are

beginner, fully, partially know, or intent learning Ubuntu operating system as compared

to other operating systems. Ubuntu OSS operating system is the most popular, parallel to

other OSS operating systems and widely used by Indian libraries.

Competency with OSS Programming Language: Majority of the respondent librarians

don’t know any of the programming languages fully. The reason behind this is the

difficulty in learning a programming language. A programming language is such if any

librarian achieves full competency they will be able to fix bugs and errors themselves! It

is recommended that librarians should increase their efficiency of using OSS

programming languages.

Satisfaction with the competency and functioning of OSS: Respondents were asked how

competent they are as far as the functioning of OSS was concerned and the top three rated

software are Library Management, IR/ Digital Library and Content Management. From

345



this we can say that most of the libraries using OSS Library Management, IR/ Digital

Library, and Content Management are the most popular parallel to other OSS.

Mode of acquiring knowledge about OSS: The best means to acquire acknowledge of

OSS is through seminar, conferences, workshop and hands-on practice.

Organization of promotional activity for the awareness of OSS: For spreading awareness

about OSS conferences, seminars, workshops and a hands-on practice are all vital. Most

libraries do organize such activities. For far reaching effects it could be better if they also

organize more webinars, LDP programs, lecture series, and create a group/ forum/ links.

Institute’s role for propagating OSS: Respondents said they are playing a role in

‘Arranging training for staff and others regarding installation, maintenance,

troubleshooting and backups’. It is also expected from the OSS based libraries to play a

more important role by taking the initiative in modifications and to support OSS

movement by working as developers and programmers.

Management of Problems using OSS: Majority of respondents prefer outsourcing when

they face any problem regarding OSS. There are very few libraries like Dayalbagh

Educational Institutes (Deemed University) and Indian Institute of Technology Bombay

said they are managing themselves. It is obvious that IIT Bombay is self-reliant and

having a team of IT experts likewise it is difficult to have such an infrastructure in all the

educational institutes of India. Therefore, it is expected that librarians should take a lead

in creating such level of expertise where they can manage any problems faced in handling

OSS moreover there is OSS community online forums and links, videos where support is

24x 7.

OSS observations: When question was posed regarding the OSS observations

respondents gave the top three ratings they are; ‘OSS helps setting International

Standards across the country and OSS is alternative to proprietary / commercial software’

‘OSS is good at budget constraint libraries and also extend technical support at no cost

and ‘OSS increases competition among contemporaries & service providers.’ Most of

346



OSS is international standard compliant and due to this and many such other features like

‘searching facilities’, ‘customization’ and ‘more options and functions’ OSS gained

popularity. Especially OSS is an ultimate choice for budget constraint libraries and if

libraries are self-dependent having IT expertise they can fix the bugs and errors to

themselves without hiring any technical person and need not to pay any sought of the

annual maintenance contract and at the end more and more sophisticated and fine product

the users will get.

Impact before and after the adoption of OSS: When question was posed regarding the

impact before and after the adoption of OSS respondents gave the top three ratings they

are; ‘Search Facilities’ ‘Customization Possible’ and ‘More Options and Functions.’

Search facility is very advanced in OSS. No software provider can provide the facility as

far as customization and functions are concerned as OSS. The reason is that the source

code is open and in addition more functions and customization is possible.

Criteria for Software Selection: This question was asked to libraries using OSS as well as

Commercial, Customized, In-house Developed, Freeware, Shareware and Public Domain

Software (type three libraries). 54.5% said that the software was ‘Selected by College/

Institutions authorities’. Whereas it is the responsibility of subject expert along with an IT

expert in conjugation as they are more capable in taking this decision.

Satisfaction with the Selection of Software (with ‘yes’ and ‘no’ option): Those

respondents who have said ‘yes’ (42.9%) the ‘Support is powerful 24 x 7’ is the main

reason that they are satisfied with the selection and those respondents who said ‘no’

(50%) agreed that ‘Modifications are impossible unless considered and amended in the

next version’ is the main reason that they are not satisfied with commercial. In OSS there

are many Forums, Communities, Links, Videos, Blogs, Tutorials, Manuals, and of course

colleagues and IT expert; ready to support in case of emergency. Open Source

community is a very active community and upgrades its versions faster in comparison

with other software providers.

347



Workshop/ hands on practice attended and impact after attendance: Out of eleven

respondents (100%) said they have attended workshop / hands-on practice on OSS and

the impact after the workshop, (72.7%) of the respondents said ‘Excellent and would like

to implement in my library’. These eleven respondents are using both OSS and

commercial software and after workshop/ hands-on practice they are expressing a

positive approach that shows they are not satisfied with commercial software and they

would like to switch to OSS.

Reasons for selection/ migration to OSS: When inquired about reasons for selection/

migration to OSS respondents gave top three responses they are; Quick installation, no

maintenance, no licensing fee, Relief from vendor locking, open source code, easy to

modify, customization, and availability of documentation are the outstanding features of

OSS and that tempts many libraries to use OSS.

Management of Problems using OSS: Majority of respondents responded that they prefer

outsourcing when they face any problem regarding OSS. There are very few librarians

who are managing these problems by themselves. It is expected that librarian should take

a lead in creating such level of expertise where they can manage any problems faced in

handling OSS. Moreover there is OSS community online forums and links, videos where

support is 24x7.

OSS observations: The OSS is international standard compliant it increases competition

among contemporaries and alternative to proprietary/ commercial software. Due to this

and many other features like Open Source, it extends technical support at no cost, gained

popularity. Especially it is an ultimate choice in budget constrained libraries and if the

libraries are self-dependent having IT expertise they can fix the bugs and errors

themselves without hiring any technical person and need not pay any sought of annual

maintenance contract. This results into increase in competition and at the end more

sophisticated and fine product would be available.

348



Impact before and after the adoption of OSS: Respondents have given preference to top

three reasons for impact before and after the adoption of OSS are; ‘Saves AMC’ ‘More

options and function’ ‘Satisfies all needs.’ Above are the reasons where respondents feel

are the major impacts for adoption of OSS.

Opinion about OSS replaces the Commercial and others. Software in the future: Out of

eleven respondents a majority of them (72.7%) said they fully agree that OSS will replace

commercial and other.in near future. This decision is based on attending workshops and

the impact after the workshop. They claim that OSS has much substance than commercial

software. It is the strength of OSS that they feel will supersede the commercial software

and the future belongs to OSS.

Reasons for using both OSS and Commercial and others software: Training is the biggest

obstacle and most of the librarians deny they are unable to use OSS at the fullest just

because they are not equipped/ trained for OSS and that is the reason they are using both

OSS and commercial software. Therefore, efforts must be made by librarians to get

trained from available source, familiarize with OSS and instead of using commercial

software there are high chances they might go for OSS only.

Opinion about use of OSS: The respondents were inquired about the opinion about OSS

and the researcher got three top responses they are; ‘Forums, community support, online

links and chats do solve the bugs and errors’ ‘In OSS no AMC is to be paid compared to

commercial/ in-house/ customized and other software’ ‘OSS has affected the market of

commercial, in-house, customized, and other software’ ‘OSS is more standard compliant

than commercial/ in-house/ customized and other software’ ‘Reports are very exhaustive

in OSS compare to commercial/ in-house/ customized and other software’ ‘Up-gradation

and release of new versions keep OSS more relevant compare to commercial/ in-house/

customized and other software’ ‘Many libraries are now opting to OSS in comparison to

commercial/ in-house/ customized and other Software’ ‘OSS is more advance and

capable of meeting todays requirement than compare to commercial/ in-house/

customized other software’ ‘OSS needs exhaustive training and expertise in IT’. The

349



respondents agreed that in OSS no AMC is to be paid, forums, community and online

links do solve bugs and errors and OSS has affected the market of commercial software.

These are the major features of OSS, where it works better than commercial software.

Commercial software charge heavily providing the above mentioned services where OSS

charges nothing; hence we can say that OSS has got an edge over commercial software.

8.2.3. FINDINGS BASED ON LIBRARIANS’ VIEW

Librarians have their own problems and complications in regard to performing their

duties. On the bases of interactions with them the following findings were observed.

Libraries are no longer confined to four walls of a building or a physical repository that

houses information. Today it has possessed the significant ground in this electronic era

where information is growing exponentially. Rising popularity of electronic contents

created new challenges for librarians to learn new methods to deal with. In this changing

landscape, librarians are trying to adjust from traditional set up to an electronic system.

Librarians are professionally trained the art of acquisition, planning, management, serial

control, retrieval, and dissemination as far as information is concern. The Internet has

captured remarkable grounds and the increasing popularity of electronic resources

transformed reading. Today storage, preservation, acquisition, retrieval is carried out

through software and digital technology. Availability of entire collection worldwide is

accessible through network. Librarian should work as e-resource managers to keep their

face. Librarianship training is not capable to meet with today’s situation but have to rely

on external sources. To master the skills on information technology is very expensive and

beyond reach. In this scenario, OSS has given an opportunity to librarians to learn and

implement the system in their library. The software Open Source is offering not only

range from library automation to digitalization of contents but also meeting the needs of

patrons in this ultra-modern digital era. Most librarians opt for commercial software,

instead of OSS, though there are many advantages. Librarians have centered their

disregard on disadvantages part of OSS i.e. maintenance. There are many reluctances

among but few are OSS working dependency, whether it will crash or survive, the

support system is not handy, whom do I contact in case of emergency, training, and

confidence in handling the software. One thing they forget is that technology will not

350



stop for them. They need to adapt themselves to the technology. They should be always

one step ahead and ready to face any challenge for their own survival.

8.2.4. From the Researcher’s Desk

OSS can help every individual, student, readers, citizen, librarian, libraries, institutions,

colleges, universities, nation, the whole world and mankind!

It is a revolution! It can metamorphose the whole society for further in knowledge. As is

said,

‘The pen is mightier than the sword’, so is the case with OSS.

1. It is ‘free’ as not fee is be paid to buy it or even run. No running cost as no AMC

needed’

2. It is faster, more advanced than commercial, as it is being continuously being

upgraded and updated by the OSS community.

3. It can be customized to every institutes specific needs.

4. It is available non-stop, forever. No holidays even for a day.

5. Absolutely no time wasting as errors and bugs can be fixed immediately at no

cost.

6. Easy to operate.

7. It can fast accelerate the growth of everyone.

8. It could be said as the ‘heart’ of knowledge source!

9. It is really serving humanity in the real sense.

10. The researcher of this thesis feels a moral obligation by helping any person,

librarian, institution, college, university etc. regarding the topic of this thesis.

Anybody can seek guidance and assistance by contacting his personal e-mail

[email protected]

8.2.5. FINDINGS BASED ON OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To study the open source software genesis, technology and library and information

science perspectives.

Chapter four is dedicated to the genesis and development of OSS where the history and

development of OSS is discussed in detail. The chapter includes how few developers

351



stood and formed FOSS (Free and OSS) community to end the monopoly of software

privatization and developed software from operating systems, licenses, to software

required to the system. Whereas a question was asked regarding what kind of role they

would like to play for the propagation of OSS (7.7%) of the librarians replied that they

would like to work as developer/ programmer/ administrator of OSS.

2. To study the applicability of OSS in libraries.

• Chapter five of the study is dedicated to find the applications of OSS that can be applied

in a library. Respondent librarians have shown interest in using OSS and among them are

Koha (73.1%), DSpace (73.1%), Joomla (42.3%), Zotero (46.1%), Open Journal System

(50%), Moodle (69.2%), LiberOffice (69.2%), VLC (69.2%), Google Chrome (59.6%),

and Ubuntu (44.2%).

3. To examine National and International initiatives and government strategies for

promotion of Open Source Software.

• In chapter six national and international agencies role is discussed in detailed. The

findings are that the step taken by INFLIBNET and Department of Electronics and

Information Technology (DeitY) in the direction of implementation of OSS in libraries is

ineffective. Although the Government of India has made an OSS policy and announced

certain OSS to be used in the library but ground realties are different. . OSS legislation is

what needed for the successful implementation of OSS.

4. To study awareness and use of Open Source Software (OSS) in libraries.

• Chapter seven is related with Data Analysis and Presentation. That covers questions

related with the awareness about OSS. When questions about the awareness of OSS and

other OSS useful for libraries, awareness on facts about OSS, and adoption of the basis of

awareness were asked to the librarians they replied in affirmation and that shows their

inclination for using OSS.

5. To suggest some suitable OSS useful in libraries for carrying out library functions.

352



• Chapter seven is related with Data Analysis and Presentation, which covers questions

related to OSS useful for libraries. Based on responses the most useful OSS is Koha

(Library Automation), DSpace (Digital Library),Joomla (Content Management), Zotero

(Citation Management), Open Journal System (Journal Publishing), Moodle (e-learning),

LiberOffice (Office Suite), VLC (Media Player), Google Chrome (Web Browser), and

Ubuntu (Operating System).

8.3. SUGGESTIONS

The study reveals many important findings and on the bases of that, the following

suggestions have been recommended. These suggestions are made to serve as a guide to

all the participating libraries in particular and also Library and Information Science

fraternity in general.

8.3.1. Library Automation and ICT approach

Any library’s progress depends on how a library is been maintained and what facilities

and services it is providing. Academic and ICT qualification of staff and status of

automation reflects how a library equipped catering the basic services to users as far as

ICT is concern. Apart from traditional setup more importantly, what ICT infrastructure a

library is using to provide ultra-modern and state of the art services that are must, where

the information platform changes from textual to online. Achieving the status of fully

automated library becomes mandatory and is recognized by the government. Current

modern communication technologies such as mobile computing and cloud computing are

optional and most of the libraries are striving to achieve that status also. The grading

system devised by various educational bodies also compel institutions and libraries to

cater their users with ICT based services .Whereas with the help of OSS these facilities

can be dealt very easily.

8.3.2. Software Selection and Utilization

OSS has a wide range of software in each category where libraries can pick any of the

suitable software for their library. Following are the categories …..

1. Library Management 13 +

353



2. Digital Library/ Institutional Repository 17 + 3. Content Management 18+ 4. Citation Management 13+ 5. Journal Management 4 + 6. Electronic Journal Archiving 2+ 7. Meta/ Federated Searching 5+ 8. e-Learning Management 4+ 9. Office Suite 6+ 10. Desktop Publishing 1+ 11. Media Player 5+ 12. Web Browser 3+

13. Scientific Computation package for numerical Computation 1+

14. Operating System 12+ 15. Server Operating System 5+ 16. Cloud Computing Operating Systems 5+ 17. Web Conferencing 2+ 18. Plagiarism 5+ 19. Optical Character Recognition 6+ 20. Anti-Virus 6+

There are other softwares which could be helpful to librarians and useful for providing a

variety of services to patrons, they are…

1. Next Generation OPACs 5+ 2. Document Management System 3+ 3. PDF Document Editing Software 5+ 4. Drawing 1+ 5. Image Editing and Graphics Designing 2+ 6. Audio Video Recording of talks and Editing 5+ 7. Web Downloading 1+ 8. Wiki Management 8+ 9. Mobile Operating System 1+ 10. Programming languages/ DBMS 12+ 11. Instant Messaging 1+ 12. Screen Casting 2+ 13. Online Survey 1+ 14. Portable Apps 1+ 15. Social Networking 1+ 16. Project Management 1+ 17. Library Apps 2+ 18. Virtual Machine 3+ 19. Animation and Computer Graphics 1+ 20. Video Editing 2+ 21. Search Engine 2+ 22. Workflow, Forms and Case Management 2+

354



23. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) 2+

In spite of a variety of software in OSS out of fifty-two respondents thirty-one libraries

are using commercial software. This includes many central and state government funded

academic and research institutions. This is loss of national asset. Majority of libraries are

only using software for automation and digital library purpose. Out of fifty-two libraries,

sixteen libraries are using LIBSYS, and seventeen libraries are using DSpace. Digital

library software DSpace is already an OSS. As far as LIBSYS is concerned libraries are

paying Rs.700000/- and advanced version cost Rs.14, 00000/-. Whereas OSS ‘Koha’

Library Management software is more capable than LIBSYS in terms of functions and

features.

8.3.3. Suggestions for implementation of Open Source for Library

In a process of transition from traditional to the world of online learning, libraries needed

information technology infrastructure. The cost of software is increasing day by day

because of users demands and needs. Whereas OSS is as an alternative to commercial/

proprietary software that cuts the cost of software and shares the burden of budget

constrained libraries. It is not just cutting the proprietary cord but also gives world

renowned standards and uniformity in collaboration. Its ambit does not stop here, more

importantly, the source code is open where further customization, development, and

redistribution is a special feature that other software providers have restricted.

Commercial software asked for per copy fees if at all the software has to be installed at

multiple places, however OSS allows as many copies you would like to install at different

places and integration of that without charging them. Multiple language facilities do not

hamper the use of software and eradicate this barrier where language becomes a priority.

There are thousands of developers and experts attached to OSS who are working round

the clock to give freedom from vendor locking and end the monopoly of commercial

vendors. OSS does not depend on any company or developer who exclusively owns it.

Even if the company fails, the code exists and anyone in the world who is interested in

the product can develop it for further mass usage. OSS community is a non-profitable

community committed by giving software democracy. Many libraries are willing to adopt

355



OSS but are facing certain technical and expertise problem. If that can be solved by

stalwarts of OSS with utmost dedication for online learning and gaining knowledge will

become easier.

OSS has a varied range of products and especially for libraries and information centers

there are innumerable projects that include, at least, five to ten software available under

each category. They are not just superseding one another but are an option for a different

set of libraries. For automation alone there are thirteen softwares e.g. Koha, NewGenLib,

EverGreen, and ABCD. For digital library there are not less than seventeen software and

popular softwares are DSpace, GSDL, Ganesha, and EPrint. Libraries at the most can

contribute from their side by reporting bugs and errors, suggesting improvements and

trying newer versions. There is an urgent need of inclusion of OSS in Indian Library and

Information Science curriculum to teach how to download, install and maintain OSS at

different platforms including servers.

8.3.4. Suggestions at National Level

There is no specific legislation in India for the adoption of OSS. Although attempts have

been made in the past through Free Software Foundation of India, gave an opinion in the

year 2003 under section (87) and sub section (2) of the Government of India’s

Information Technology Act 2000 to the department of Information and Communication

Technology. It was as late as 2014 that Ministry of Communication & Information

Technology, Department of Electronics and Information Technology vide his notification

(F. No. 1 (3)/ 2014 – EG II) made an OSS policy entitled “Policy on Adoption of OSS for

the Government of India”. FOSS (Free and OSS) cell of Department of Electronics and

Information Technology (DeitY) announced major initiatives and products in the area of

Free and OSS (FOSS). One of the products of OSS is Koha ILMS (Integrated Library

Management Systems) and Dspace. It seems the above mentioned things are on papers

and as far as ground realities are concern it was not observed that single library during the

course of study mentioning the above product. Also, there is a necessity to create a

cloud-based set-up that would give access to all the libraries in India free and

uninterrupted services to install, maintain, and to solve the problems occurred during the

356



handling of OSS. There has to be a provision to allocate a separate budget for OSS that

should include and impart training to libraries and information science professionals.

8.3.5. Suggestions for the Open Source Software Community

Although OSS community is doing a magnificent job providing software and technical

details to the world over as a freedom from software being distributed at no cost. Many

websites like sourceforge.net, code.google.com, Launchpad.net, and freshmeat.net, give

the idea about OSS projects and software. Different information is being maintained by

different people and experts but there has to be a single window/website that should give

the holistic approach to the aspirants of OSS seekers. A website or web directory should

be maintained clearing all the doubts, giving complete information about developers,

administrators, features and video demonstration, prerequisites, system requirement and

proper documentation manuals and screenshots. This will help the migrant libraries to

discuss their doubts, gaining confidence for using OSS and even issues encountered

during the handling of OSS should be solve. Information about agents for customization

of OSS across the globe with complete address should also be given. It is expected from

collaborators/, developers and administrator of OSS to work with different agencies and

research organizations to overcome the difficulties of the masses for a quality of

betterment of their products.

8.4. AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The outcome of this research work raised some serious concerns for further study.

Following are some directions for further research related to OSS.

Applied OSS solutions for Library: OSS is booming and has created a platform for

non-IT people. It gives an opportunity to people concerning any fraternity to come and

join hands making software industry free from the clutches of commercial service

providers. Libraries being most compromised and misunderstood entity can be proved

wrong with the support of OSS. OSS is free from license fees and good for budget

restricted libraries. It gives practical solutions to all our technology related problems.

Therefore, librarians are expected to explore more and more OSS applications and utilize

357



the same in their libraries. A study in this direction is required as to what are the feasible

softwares that can be used in libraries.

Consolidation of OSS for libraries: Library Automation, Digital Library, Web Content

Management and e-learning are the most commonly used software for libraries.

Consolidation of this software will not only reduce the cost of information technology but

also simplify the maintenance problem. It will reduce the operating cost, improve service

level and security, better utilization of computing resources, increase standardization, and

improve reliability and availability.

Open Source and Cloud Computing tools for library: The models of Cloud

Computing SaaS (Software as a service), PaaS (Platform as a Service) and IaaS

(Infrastructure as a Service) are helpful for libraries also. Cloud computing gives

assurance and security of data at multiple places. Big servers and virtual machines are

very costly and difficult to maintain. Whereas OSS and Cloud Computing in conjugation

will be helpful for libraries. Open Source community has developed Operating System

Software that can be run on Cloud. They are Glide, myGoya, KOHIVE, ZIMDEST, and

CLOUDO. Like OSS there are some service providers who are providing space on Cloud

without charging. They are Mega, Qihoo 360 Yunpan, TencentWeiyun, SpiderOak,

OneDrive, Just cloud, Dropbox, Bitcasa, OneDrive etc. Thorough study in this regard is

expected as a guideline for libraries to grab these services.

OSS for libraries worldwide impact study: There is no study in this direction made to

ascertain the popularity of OSS at National and International platform. Many

conferences, seminars and workshops were held for the wide spread of OSS but there is

no joint venture so far has been organized.

SUMMARY

No doubt that Information and Communication Technology made people around the

globe self-dependent. Today’s generation is fast, quick in gathering information and that

is why they are called as Netizens (a citizen who actively uses the Internet). But the point

358



is how useful the information they are gathering is? Where is it available? What is the

search strategy? This has to be done by library professional and for that, they should

work as Information Analyst. It is practically impossible to carry out teaching, learning

and educational activity without the help of libraries and information center. Due to

shrinking budget and increasing prices of journals, librarians have to think about for a

new substitute that can collect, store, arrange and disseminate information to the users.

Open source is useful in saving time, money and resources. There are many OSS

applications available for educational purpose that includes Library Management, Digital

Library, Content Management, Journal Management, e-Learning, and others. OSS not

only offers inexpensive and advanced solutions to Indian Libraries but also keeps the

source code open for any person, group and fraternity to use, distribute, rewrite,

download, and install under the same licensing terms. There is a certain lack of technical

knowledge and awareness and that is why most of the libraries are unable to implement

OSS in their libraries. However, it is also remarkable to note that libraries are gradually

moving and implementing OSS. It is clear from the study that (59.6%) of libraries are

using commercial software, (19.2%) use only OSS and (21.2%) are using both OSS and

commercial software for their libraries. The respondent librarians have shown there

interest in using OSS and among them are Koha (73.1%), DSpace (73.1%), Joomla

(42.3%), Zotero (46.1%), Open Journal System (50%), Moodle (69.2%), LiberOffice

(69.2%), VLC (69.2%), Google Chrome (59.6%), and Ubuntu (44.2%). But as

mentioned, there is a lack of infrastructure, technical knowledge, interference of

authorities, misconceptions, and many such reasons are stumbling blocks in the

successful implementation of OSS. The steps taken by INFLIBNET and Department of

Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY) in the direction of implementation of

OSS in libraries are ineffective. Although the Government of India, has made an OSS

policy and announced certain OSS to be used in the library but ground realties are

different. OSS legislation is what needs to be made for the successful implementation of

OSS.

**********************************

359

APPENDICES


Appendix 1 Bibliography 360-378

Appendix 2 Questionnaire 379-408

Appendix 3 Useful OSS for libraries 409-415

Appendix 4 Abstract of Articles Published in Journal/ Books 416-418

Appendix: 1

Bibliography

Appendix – 1: Bibliography

AICTE. (2014). Ancient Universities of India. Retrieved January 6, 2016, from All India

Council for Technical Education: http://www.aicte-

india.org/downloads/ancient.pdf

Almeida, F., Oliveira, J., & Cruz, J. (2011, January). OPEN STANDARDS AND OPEN

SOURCE: ENABLING INTEROPERABILITY. International Journal of

Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), 2(1), 1-11.

Anil, Kumar, A., & Chahar, V. (2011, October). Awareness of Open Source Software

(OSS): Promises, Reality and Future. IJCSMS International Journal of

Computer Science and Management Studies, 11(3), 52-59.

Antherjanam, S., & Sheeja, N. (2008). Impact of ICT on Library and Information

Science: Major Shifts and Practices in CUSAT Central Library. 6th

International CALIBER, University of Allahbad (pp. 35-43). Allahbad:

INFLIBNET.

Apache Software Foundation. (2016). Apache License. Retrieved May 2, 2016, from

Apache: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Apache Software Foundation. (2016). Licensing of Distribution. Retrieved May 2, 2016,

from Apache: https://www.apache.org/licenses/

APCICT, A. a. (2013). International Open Source Network. Retrieved April 1, 2016,

from United Nation's Economic and Social Commissions for Asia and the

Pacific ESCAP: http://www.unapcict.org/ecohub/resources/international-

open-source-network

Asari, R. (2009). IT for Librarians. New Delhi: I. K. International Publishing House.

Asay, M. (2007, October 2). Why choose proprietary software over open source? Survey

says! Retrieved December 25, 2015, from CNET:

http://www.cnet.com/news/whychooseproprietarysoftwareoveropensource

surveysays/

Atri, Y. K. (2012). Free/ Open versus Commercial Software: A study of some selected

library management software . Thesis submitted to Shri Jagdish Prasad

360

Use and Impact of OSS Among Selected Academic & Research Institute Libraries: A Critical Study of Indian Perspective


Jhabarmal Tibrewala University for the degree of PhD. Rajasthan, India:

Department of Library Science Shri Jagdish Prasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala

University .

Bandi, I., & Ramakrishnegowda, K. (2013). Applications of ICT in University Libraries

in Maharashtra State: An Overview. In B. Ramesha, & B. Kumbar (Ed.),

58th ILA International Conference on: Next Generation Libraries: New

Insights and Universal Access to Knowledge. (pp. 52-56). Dharwad:

Indian Library Association.

Barve, S. (2008, August). An Evaluation of Open Source Software for Building Digital

Libraries. Thesis submitted to the University of Pune for the degree of

PhD. Pune, Maharashtra, India: Department of Library and Information

Science University of Pune.

Barve, S., & Dahibhate, N. (2012, September). Open Source Software for Library

Services. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 32(5),

401-408.

Benson, T. (2005, March 29). BRAZIL: Free Software's Biggest and Best Friend.

Retrieved January 28, 2016, from Corp Watch:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12016

Berners-Lee, T. (2008). History of the Web. Retrieved May 2, 2016, from World Wide

Web Foundation: http://webfoundation.org/about/vision/history-of-the-

web/

Bhatt, R. K. (1995). History and Development of Libraries in India. New Delhi: Mittal

Publications.

Bhavsar, S. A. (2013, April). Use and Application of Open Source Software in Libraries.

Thesis submitted to North Maharashtra University for the degree of PhD.

Thane, Maharashtra: Department of Library and Information Science

North Maharashtra University Jalgaon.

Biswas, G., & Paul, D. (2010, February). An evaluative study on the open source digital

library softwares for institutional repository: Special reference to Dspace

and greenstone digital library. International Journal of Library and

Information Science, 2(1), 1-10.

361



Breeding, M. (2002, October). An Update on Open Source ILS. Information Today,

19(9), 42.

Breeding, M. (2002, October). An Update on Open Source ILS, Information Today.

Retrieved June 13th, 2013, from Library Technology Guides:

http://librarytechnology.org/repository/item.pl?id=9975

Bretthauer, D. (2002, March). Open Source Software: A History. Information Technology

and Libraries (Special Issue on Open Source Software), 21(1).

British Museum. (No date). The Library of Ashurbanipal. Retrieved January 3, 2016,

from British Museum:

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/research_projects/all_current_proj

ects/ashurbanipal_library_phase_1.aspx

Burge, S. (2012). Joomla explained your step by step guide. India: Pearson.

Business , S. (2013). Global Software Piracy Study : Fifth Annual BSA and IDC Global

Software Piracy Study. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from BSA : The

Software Alliance:

http://globalstudy.bsa.org/2007/studies/2007_global_piracy_study.pdf

Cartwright, M. (2012, June 20). Celsus Library. Retrieved January 6, 2016, from Ancient

History Encyclopedia: http://www.ancient.eu/Celsus_Library/

CENATIC. (2016, February 18). Retrieved January 8, 2016, from European Commission,

Joinup: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/catalogue/repository/cenatic

C-DAC. (2016, February 10). BOSS GNU/Linux. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from Centre

for Development of Advanced Computing:

http://www.cdac.in/index.aspx?id=st_pr_Boss_gnu_linux

Center for History and New Media. (n.d.). Zotero personal research assistance.

Retrieved May 20, 2016, from zotero: https://www.zotero.org/

Chae, B., & Mchaney, R. (2006). Asian trio's adoption of linux-based open source

development. Communications of the ACM, 49(9), 95-99.

Chandra, S. (2005). Library and Information Technology. New Delhi: Shree Publishers

and Distributors.

Chauhan, B. (2004). ICT Enabled Library and Information Services. Winter School on

ICT Enabled Library & Information Services, 1-10.

362



Cheng, Y. L. (2008). Virtual Reference Services. Bulletin of the American Soceity for

Information Science and Technology, 34(2), 6-7.

Cherukodan, S. (2015, August). Measuring the Maturity of Open Source Software for

Digital Libraries: a Case Study of DSpace. Thesis submitted to Cochin

University of Science and Technology for the degree of PhD in LIS.

Kerala: Department of Computer Applications Cochin University of

Science and Technology.

Cherukodan, S., Kumar, G., & Kabir, S. (2013). Using open source software for digital

libraries a case study of CUSAT. The Electronic Library, 31(2), 217-225.


to resources in Indian University Libraries. International Information and



to resources in Indian University Libraries. International Information and


Chouhan, L. (2010, August). Open Source Software (OSS) for Library Management: A

study. Thesis submitted to Associate ship in Information Science. New

Delhi, India: National Institute of Science Communication and

Information Resources (NISCAIR/ CSIR).

Chudnov, D., Barnett, J., Prasad , R., & Wilcox, M. (2005). Experiments in academic

social book marking with Unalog. Library Hi Tech, 23(4), 469-480.

CLOCKSS. (2015). CLOCKSS benefits. Retrieved May 30, 2016, from CLOCKSS:

https://www.clockss.org/clockss/Benefits

CMS Matrix. (No date). Drupal . Retrieved May 30, 2016, from CMS Matrix:

http://www.cmsmatrix.org/matrix/cms-matrix/drupal

Dahibhate, N., Patil, S., & Mugade, V. (2014). Digital and Virtual Libraries:

Tranformation in Libraries and Information Services. In S. Inamdar , N.

Khot, & G. Buwa, Festschrift in Honour of Dr. N. I. Divtankar

Parameters and Perspectives of LIS Education (pp. 25-35). Varanasi:

ABS Publication.

363



DeitY. (2016, April 13). Free and Open Source Software. Retrieved January 3, 2016,

from Department Of Electronics & Information Technology, Ministry of

Communications & IT, Government Of India:

http://deity.gov.in/content/free-and-open-source-software

DESIDOC. (2012, September). Open Source Software for Libraries. DESIDOC Journall

of Library and Information Science, 32, 379-451.

Dhamdhere, S. N. (2011, December). ABCD, an Open Source Software for Modern

Libraries. Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 32,

1-17.

DHI Group Inc. (2016). Open Source Systems for Libraries. Retrieved May 20, 2016,

from Source Forge:

https://sourceforge.net/p/oss4lib/mailman/message/3582731/

DiBona, C., Cooper, D., & Stone, M. (2006). Opne Source 2.0: The Continuing

Evolution. United States of America: O'Reilly.

Digital Library Federation. (2011, January 11). A working definition of digital library

[1998]. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from Digital Library Federation:

https://old.diglib.org/about/dldefinition.htm

DuraSpace. (No date). Fedora key features. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from Fedora

Commons: http://fedora-commons.org/features

Đurković, J., Vuković, V., & Raković, L. (2008, June). Open Source Approach in

Software Development - Advantages and Disadvantages. Management

Information Systems, 3(2), 29-33.

Eclipse Foundation. (2016). About the Eclipse Foundation. Retrieved May 10, 2016,

from Eclipse: https://eclipse.org/org/

Edgewall. (2008). Welcome to ABCD project. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from RedDes:


Electronics and Computer Science. (2016). EPrints Software. Retrieved May 16, 2016,

from EPrints: http://www.eprints.org/uk/index.php/eprints-software/

Elsevier. (2003, July). Open Source Software Development. Research Policy, 32(7),

1149-1292.

364



Emerald Insight. (2005). Special Issue: Open Source Software. Library Hi Tech, 23(4),

465- 621.

Encyclopedia Britannica. (2016). Library. Retrieved January 1, 2016, from Encyclopedia

Britannica Library: http://www.britannica.com/topic/library

Encyclopedia Britannica, I. (2016). Copyright. Retrieved May 5, 2016, from

Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/topic/copyright

Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. (2016). Trademark. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from

Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/topic/trademark

Engard, N. C. (2010). Practical Open Source Software for Libraries. UK: Chandos

Publishing.

Faruqi, K. (1997). Automation in Libraries. New Delhi: Anmol Prakashan.

Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B., Hissam, S., & Lakhani, K. (2005). Perspectives on Free and

Open Source Software. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of

Technology.

Fogel, K. (2005). Producing Open Source Software. United States of America: O'Reilly.

Free Software Foundation. (2016, January 1). What is free software ? The Free Software

Definition. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from GNU Operating System:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html


Them. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from GNU Operating System:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html


Them. Retrieved May 2, 2016, from GNU Operating sponsored by Free

Software Foundation: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Free Software Foundation Inc. (2016). What is free software? Retrieved May 2, 2016,

from GNU operating system: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-

sw.html

Ganguly, R. (2007). Technology in Digital Libraries. Delhi: Isha Books.

Gay, J. (2002). Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman.

United States of America: Free Software Foundation.

365



Georgia Public Library. (2016). About Evergreen. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from

Evergreen - Open Source Library Software: https://evergreen-

ils.org/about-us/

GIAN. (2011). Frequently Asked Questions on Patent. Retrieved January 29, 2016, from

Grassroots Innovations Augmentation Network, North:

http://www.gian.org/north/files/FAQ.pdf

GitHub. (2016). Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and

Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software. Retrieved

January 7, 2016, from GitHub, Inc. USA, White House Open Source

Policy: https://github.com/WhiteHouse/source-code-policy

Gopal, K. (1999). Modern Library Automation. New Delhi: Authorspress.

Government of Australia. (2014, February 10). A Guide to Open Source Software.

Retrieved February 24, 2016, from Australian Government Department of

Finance:

http://www.finance.gov.au/files/2012/04/AGuidetoOpenSourceSoftware.p

df

Government of Australia. (2014, February 10). Australian Government Policy on Open

Source Software. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from Australian

Government Department of Finance: http://www.finance.gov.au/policy-

guides-procurement/open-source-software/

Government of South Africa. (2016). Policy on Free and Open Source Software use for

South African Government. Retrieved January 1, 2016, from South

African Government:

http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/foss_policy_0.pdf

Hage, J., Rademaker, P., & Vugt, N. (2010). A comparison of plagiarism detection tools.

Nitherland: Department of Information and Computing Sciences.

Hahn, R. W. (2002). Government Policy toward Open Source Software. Washington D.

C. : AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.

Hamelink, C. J. (1997). New Information and Communication Technologies, Social

Development and Cultural Change. Switzerland: United Nations Research

Institute for Social Development.

366



Hoe, N. S. (2006). Breaking Barriers The Potential of Free and Open Source Software

for Sustainable Human Development. New Delhi: Elsevier.

Holly Yu. (2005). Content and Workflow Management for Library Web Sites: Case

Studies. Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

Hussain, A. (2013). ICT Based Library and Information Services. New Delhi: Ess Ess

Publication.

IDG Network. (2016). LibreOffice 5.1: The premier open-source office suite just keeps

getting better. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from PC World:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3031234/software-

productivity/libreoffice-51-features-streamlined-menus-and-remote-

server-support.html

IFLA. (2009, December). Open Source. Retrieved December 13, 2015, from IFLA:

http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/information-technology/ifla1-09-

dec_its.pdf

IFLA. (2014, April 2). IFLA Open Source Working Group. Retrieved January 20, 2016,

from IFLA: http://www.ifla.org/it/opensource

Index Data. (No date). Pazpar2. Retrieved May 25, 2016, from Index Data:

http://www.indexdata.com/pazpar2/doc/pazpar2.pdf

INFLIBNET. (2015). Shodhganga a reservoir of Indian Theses. Retrieved Jauary 20,

2016, from Shodagands, INFLIBNET: http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/

INFLIBNET. (2016). INFLIBNET at a glance (Brochure). Gandhinagar, Gujarat:

INFLIBNET.

Islam , M., & Islam, M. (2006). Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in

Libraries: A New Dimension in Librarianship. Asian Journal of

lnformation Technology, 5(8), 809-817.

Jagadeesha , S., & Mudhol, M. (1998). Library Automation Using Foxpro 2.0. New


Jain, P., & Babbar, P. (2006). Digital Library Initiative in India. The International


Johnson, K. (2008, Spring). Reducing Resistance to the Adoption of Open Source

Systems. Dalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management, 4, 1-9.

367



Kaashoek , M., Engler, D., & Wallach, D. (1996). Server Operating System. Proceedings

of the SIGOPS European Workshop (pp. 1- 8). Connemara, Ireland: ACM.

Kavanaugh, P. (2004). Open Source Software: Implementation and Management. United

States of America: Elsevier.

Kavanaugh, P. (2004). Open Source Software Implementation and Management. United

States of America: Elsevier .

Koch, S. (2005). Free/Open Source Software Development. United States of America:

Idea Group Publishing.

Koekoe, J. (2015, June 26). The Great Library of Alexandria. Retrieved January 2, 2016,

from Ancient History: http://etc.ancient.eu/2015/06/26/5-amazing-

libraries-in-ancient-history/

Krogh, G., & Hippel, E. (2003). Special issue on open source software development.

Research Policy, 32, 1149-1157.

Kshetri, N., & Schiopu, A. (2007, March). Government Policy, Continental Collaboration

and the Diffusion of Open Source Software in China, Japan, and South

Korea. China, Japan, and South Korea, 8(1), 61-77.

Lallorge. (2012, October 3). April. Retrieved November 10, 2015, from Ayrault circular

on the proper use of free software in the:

http://www.april.org/print/circulaire-ayrault-sur-le-bon-usage-des-

logiciels-libres-dans-ladministration-francaise

Lavraskas , P. (2008). Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. California: Sage

Publications Inc.

Lee, J., & Ware, B. (2005). Open Source Web Development with LAMP using Linex,

Apache, MySQL, Perl and PHP. India: Pearson.

Lewis, J. A. (2010, March). Government Open Source Policies March 2010. Retrieved

January 6, 2016, from Center for Strategic and International Studies

(CSIS):

http://csis.org/files/publication/100416_Open_Source_Policies.pdf

Li, M., Li, Z., & Xia, M. (2004, Winter). Leveraging the Open Source Software

Movement for Development of China’s Software Industry. Information

Technologies and International Development, 2(2), 45-63.

368



Library and Information Technology Association ALA. (2002, March). Special Issue :

Open Source Software. Information Technology and Libraries, 21(1), 1-

35.

Mah, C., & Stranack, K. (2005). dbWiz: open source federated searching for academic

libraries. Library Hi Tech, 23(4), 490-503.

Masrek, M., & Hakimjavadi, H. (2012). Evaluation of Three Open Source Software in

Terms of Managing Repositories of Electronic Theses and Dissertations:

A Comparison Study. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research,

2(11), 10843-10852.

McCaughey, J. (2013, April 22). How to get started with WebHuddle. Retrieved May 26,

2016, from WebHuddle: https://www.webhuddle.com/aboutpage.jsp

Media Wiki. (2016, June 6). AppArmor Description. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from

Media Wiki: http://wiki.apparmor.net/index.php/Main_Page

Mehta, S., & Kalra, M. (2006). Information and Communication Technologies: A bridge

for social equity and sustainable development in India. The International


Molyneux, R., & Rylander, M. (2010). The state of Evergreen : Evergreen at three.


Mozilla Foundation. (2016). About MPL 2.0: Revision Process and Changes FAQ.

Retrieved Mau 2, 2016, from Mozilla: https://www.mozilla.org/en-

US/MPL/2.0/Revision-FAQ/

Mukhopadhyay, P., & Das, S. (2008). Towards Library 2.0: Designing and Implementing

the Modern Library Service. 6th Convention Planner (pp. 197-204).

Nagaland: INFLIBNET.

Muller, F. (2012, August 15). Discover Open Source World. Retrieved December 12,

2015, from Brazil at forefront of open source initiatives:

https://opensource.com/government/12/8/brazil-forefront-open-source-

initiatives

Muller, T. (2011). How to choose a free and open source integrated library system.

Digital Library Perspectives, 27(1), 57-78.

369



Nagarjuna, G. (2013). Free Software Foundation of India. Retrieved February 10, 2016,

from Free Software Foundation of India: http://fsf.org.in/about-fsf-

india/why-we-exist

Naik, U., & Shivalingaiah, D. (2006). DIGITAL LIBRARY OPEN SOURCE

SOFTWARE : A COMPARATIVE STUDY. 4th International

Convention CALIBER-2006 (pp. 27- 39). Gulbarga: INFLIBNET centre,

Ahmedabad.

Nickel. (2010, March 15). Ancient Indian Libraries. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from

Nickel-Ancient Indian Libraries: http://nickel-

ancientindianlibraries.blogspot.in/

Nigam, B., & Kataria , S. (2008). Digital Libraries ( A Festschrift volume of Professor R.

K. Raut). New Delhi: Mahamaya Publishing House.

Noda, T., Tansho, T., & Coughlan, S. (2010, November). Standing Situations and Issues

of Open Source Policy in East Asian Nations: Outcomes of Open Source

Research Workshop of East Asia. Journal of Economics Memoirs Of The

Faculty Of Law And Literature, Special Issue “Open Source Policy and

Promotion of IT Industries in East Asia”, 37, 1-6.

NRCFOSS. (2011). NRCFOSS Objectives. Retrieved March 5, 2016, from National

Resource Centre fir Free and Open Source Software:

http://www.nrcfoss.org.in/objectives

Oghre, B. (2005). Free" and Open Source Software: A Revolutionary Phenomenon for

Advancement in Developing Countries Like Nigeria. Retrieved February

24, 2016, from GAMJI:

http://www.gamji.com/article5000/NEWS5885.htm

O'Neil, E. K. (2001, May). Selective Dissemination of Information in the Dynamic Web

Environment. A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the School of

Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia. United States of

America, Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.

Online College. (2016). 11 Most Impressive Libraries from the Ancient World. Retrieved

January 10, 2016, from Online College:

370



http://www.onlinecollege.org/2011/05/30/11-most-impressive-libraries-

from-the-ancient-world/

ONSFA, & CENATIC. (2010, December 12). Report on the International Status of Open

Source Software 2010. Retrieved January 14, 2016, from Observatorio

Nacional del Software de Fuentes Abiertas CENATIC:

http://observatorio.cenatic.es/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl

e&id=666:report%ADon%ADthe%ADinternational%ADstatus%ADof%

ADop1/1

Open Source Initiative. (1998, February). Open Source Software Definition and License

Distribution Terms. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from Open Source

Initiative: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). Apache License, Version 2.0 . Retrieved May 2, 2016,

from Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0

Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). Licenses and Standards. Retrieved May 4, 2016, from

Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/licenses

Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). The MIT License . Retrieved May 6, 2016, from Open

Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

Open Source Initiatvie. (2012, September). History of the OSI. Retrieved May 20, 2016,

from Open Source: https://opensource.org/history

OSI, & NASA. (2003). NASA Open Source Agreement v1.3 (NASA-1.3). Retrieved

January 15, 2016, from Open Source Initiative and NASA:

https://opensource.org/licenses/NASA-1.3 and

http://www.nasa.gov/open/plan/open-source-development_prt.htm

OSI Welcomes Debian and CENATIC. (2012, March 30). Retrieved January 5, 2016,

from Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/node/609

Pan , G., & Bonk, C. (2007, March). The Emergence of Open-Source Software in China.

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(1), 1-

18.

Pankaja N, & Mukund Raj, P. (2013). Proprietary software versus Open Source Software

for Education. American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER), 2(7),

124-130.

371



PITAC. (2000, October). Developing Open Source Software for High End Computing

(President's Information Technology Advisory Committee). Retrieved

February 2, 2016, from Networking and Information Technology Research

and Development (NITRD) USA: https://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/pitac/pres-

oss-11sep00.pdf

Pitroda, S. (2009, March). National Knowledge Commission Reports. Retrieved March

15, 2016, from NKC reports, Libraries Gateways to Knowledge and NKC

Report to the nation 2006-2009:

http://knowledgecommissionarchive.nic.in/default.asp

Pritzker, T. (2016). Government Open Source Policies. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Strategic Insights

and Bipartisan Policy Solutions.: http://csis.org/publication/government-

open-source-policies

Pritzker, T. J. (2016). 2012 Annual Report. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from Center for

Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Strategic Insights and

Bipartisan Policy Solutions.:

http://csis.org/files/publication/130807_annualreport_finalPDF-sm5.pdf

Public Knowledge Project. (2014). Open Journal Systems. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from

Public Knowledge Project: https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/

Putnik, G., & Cunha, M. (2008). Encyclopedia of Networked and Virtual Organizations.

United States of America: Information Science Reference.

Rajesekaran , K., Nair, R., & Nafala, K. (2010). Digital Library Basics a practical

manual. New Delhi: Ess Ess Publication.

Ramalingam . (2000). Library and Information Technology concepts to Application. New

Delhi: Kalpaz Publication.

Randal, A. (No date). Open Source Initiative. Retrieved August 12, 2014, from Open

Source: https://opensource.org/licenses

Randal, A. (No date). The Open Source Definition. Retrieved June 17th, 2013, from Open


Rao, R. (1990). Library Automation. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Limited.

372



Rawtani, M., & Chidambaram, S. (2009). Drupal: The Open Source Content

Management System Software Suit For Library With Library 2.0 Features.

7th International CALIBER-2009 (pp. 176-183). Puducherry:

INFLIBNET.

Raymond, E. S. (2001). The Cathedral and Bazaar. United States of America: O'Reilly.

Raymond, E. S. (2001). The Cathedral and Bazaar. United States of America: O'Reilly.

Raza, M. a. (2007). Use of information technology in University Libraries of Punjab,

Chandigarh and Himachal Pradesh: A Comparative Study. International


Red Hat Inc. (2016). What's New in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. Retrieved May 29,

2016, from Red Hat: https://www.redhat.com/en/files/resources/en-rhel-

whats-new-in-rhel-712030417.pdf

Reddes. (2008). Welcome to ABCD project. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from Reddes:


Saleem A, T. S. (2013). Application and Uses of Information Communication

Technology (ICT) in Academic Libraries: An Overview. International

Journal of Library Science, 2(3), 49-52.

Sangma, S. K. (2013). A Manual of Library Automation and Networking. New Delhi:

Centrum Press.

Sawant, S. (2009, May). Institutional Repository Initiatives in India : A Status Report.

Thesis submitted to SNDT Women's University for the degree of PhD.

Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Department of Library and Information

Science SNDT Women's University.

Scilab. (2015). About Scilab. Retrieved May 22, 2016, from Scilab:

http://www.scilab.org/scilab/about

Scribus. (2016). About Scribus. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from Scribus:

https://www.scribus.net/category/about/

Sehgal, B. L. (1998). Hand book of Library Software PAckages. New Delhi: Ess Ess

Publication.

373



Shaikh, M. (2016). Application of Cloud Computing Model in Libraries: An

Introduction. In A. Chikate , & P. Ghante, Library Management in

Electronic Environment. Agra: Y. K. Publishers.

Shaikh, M., & Mugade, V. (2016). Cutting the Proprietary Cord, Paradigm Shift & Soft

Solutions for Libraries: It's Open Source Software. In D. Veer, S. Chavan,

& D. Kalbande, Advanced Applications of ICT in Academic Libraries (pp.

124-137). New Delhi: Agri Biovet Press.

Sharma, P. S. (1993). Library Computerisation Theory and Practice. New Delhi: Ess Ess

Publication .

Shukla, S. (2010). Electronic Resources Management What, Why and How. New Delhi:

Ess Ess Publication.

Singh D K, N. M. (2008). Impact of Information Technology and Role of Libraries in the

Age of Information and Knowledge Societies. 6th International CALIBER

(pp. 28- 34). Ahmedabad: INFLIBNET.

Singh, G. (2007). Introduction to Computers for Library Professionals. New Delhi: Ess

Ess Publications.

Sourceforge. (2016). Plaggie 1.1. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from Sourceforge:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/plaggie/

Sourceforge. (2016). VLC Media Player. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from Sourceforge:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/vlc/editorial/?source=psp

Stallman, R. (2016, January 1). What is free Software. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from

GNU Operating System: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Stallman, R. M. (2010). Free Software, Free Soceity (Selected Essays of Richard M.

Stallman) (2 ed.). Boston: Free Software Foundation.

Sunil, M. (2011, September). An Analytical Study of OSS (Open Source Software) for

College Libraries. Thesis submitted to University of Mysore for the degree

of PhD. Manasagangotri, Mysore, India: Department of Studies in Library

& Information Science University of Mysore.

SUSE. (2016). SUSE AppArmor Features. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from SUSE:

https://www2.suse.com/support/security/apparmor/features/

374



The Eclipse Foundation. (2016). Eclipse Public License v1.0. Retrieved May 7, 2016,

from Eclipse: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html

The Linux Information Project. (2005, April 22). BDS License Definition. Retrieved May

10, 2016, from Linux Information : http://www.linfo.org/bsdlicense.html

Thompson, M. (No date). Open Source, Open Standards: Reforming IT procurement in

Government. England: Judge Business School, Cambridge University.

Tiwari, P. (2006). Digital Library. New Delhi: A P H Publishing Corporation.

Tripathi, A., Prasad, H., & Mishra, R. (2010). Open Source Library Solutions. New


U. K. Government. (2011, March 30). Policy Paper Government ICT strategy. Retrieved

January 5, 2016, from Government of United Kingdom:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/

file/85968/uk-government-government-ict-strategy_0.pdf

U.K. Government. (2010, January 27). Policy paper Open source, open standards and re-

use: government action plan. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from

Government of United Kingdom:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/

file/61962/open_source.pdf

UNESCO. (2016). Communication and Information FOSS. Retrieved March 12, 2016,

from UNESCO: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-

information/access-to-knowledge/free-and-open-source-software-

foss/browse/2/

University of Kashmir. (2011, July - December). Special Issue on Open Source Software

System: Challenges and Opportunities. (Prof. Shafi S.M, Ed.) Trends in

Information Management, 7(2), 74 - 246.

USA. (2014, September). The Open Government Partnership Announcing New Open

Government Initiatives as part of the Second Open Government National

Action Plan for the United States of America. Retrieved January 8, 2016,

from White House:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/new_nap_c

ommitments_report_092314.pdf

375



VA Software. (2016). OpenBiblio. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from sourceforge:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/obiblio/?source=directory

Veer, D., & Kshirsagar, S. (2016). Application of Information Technology in the Deemed

University Libraries in Maharashtra: An Evaluative Study. In D. Veer, S.

Chavan , & D. Kalbande , Advanced Applications of ICT in Academic

Libraries (pp. 325-331). New Delhi: Agri-Biovet Press.

Verus Solutions. (No date). NewGenLib Features. Retrieved Mau 20, 2016, from Verus

Solutions: http://www.verussolutions.biz/web/content/features

Weber, S. (2004). The Success of Open Source. United Stated of America: Harvard

University Press.

Weber, S. (2004). The Success of Open Source. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Weerawarana, S., & Weeratunga, J. (2004, January). Open Source in Developing

Countries. Sweden: SIDA ( Swedish International Development

Cooperation Agency).

Weilbach, L., & Byrne, E. (May 2009). Aligning National Policy Imperatives With

Internal Information Systems Innovations: A Case Study Of An Open

Source Enterprise Content Management System In The South African

Public Sector. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Social

Implications of Computers in Developing Countries, (pp. 1-16). Dubai,

United Arab Emirates.

Wikipedia. (2012, January 5). Open Source Movement. Retrieved March 17, 2013, from

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_movement

Wikipedia. (2015, November 24). EPrints. Retrieved May 16, 2016, from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPrints

Wikipedia. (2015, Janaury 8). Open archive. Retrieved February 12, 2016, from

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_archive

Wikipedia. (2015, July 3). ZimDesk. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from Wikipedia:

https://translate.google.co.in/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=https://pt.wikipedi

a.org/wiki/ZimDesk&prev=search

376



Wikipedia. (2016, January 7). ABCD. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from Wikipedia:

http://wiki.bireme.org/en/index.php/ABCD

Wikipedia. (2016, May 31). Drupal. Retrieved June 1, 2016, from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drupal

Wikipedia. (2016, April 5). Eclipse Public License. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from

Wikipedia the free Encyclopedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License

Wikipedia. (2016, May 18). Evergreen Software. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_(software)

Wikipedia. (2016, May 25). GNU Lesser General Public License. Retrieved May 10,

2016, from Wikipedia the free Encyclopedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License

Wikipedia. (2016, May 18). History of the Internet. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

Wikipedia. (2016, May 4). History of Unix. Retrieved May 21, 2016, from Wikipedia the

free Encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unix

Wikipedia. (2016, April 28). Information and communications technology. Retrieved

January 15, 2016, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_and_communications_technolo

gy

Wikipedia. (2016, March 11). OpenBiblio. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBiblio

Wikipedia. (2016, May 7). Patent. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from Wikipedia the free

encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

Wikipedia. (2016, June 9). Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Retrieved May 25, 2016, from

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux

Wikipedia. (2016, April 27). Scilab. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scilab

Wikipedia. (2016, June 8). Wordpress. Retrieved June 10, 2016, from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPress

377



Willinsky, J. (2005). Open Journal Systems An example of open source software for

journal management and publishing. Library Hi Tech, 23(4), 504-519.

Witten , I., & Bainbridge, D. (2005). Creating digital library collections with Greenstone.

Library Hi Tech, 23(4), 541-560.

World International Property Organization . (n.d.). What is a Trade Secret? Retrieved

May 5, 2016, from World International Property Organization (WIPO):

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/trade_secrets/trade_secrets.htm

World International Property Organization. (n.d.). What is Intellectual Property.

Retrieved May 5, 2016, from World International Property Organization

(WIPO): http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/

Yuvraj Mayank, & Singh, A. (2013, Jan - Mar). Open Source Cloud Computing Software

and Solutions for libraries. International Journal of Information

Dissemination and Technology, 3(1), 42-48.

378

Appendix: 2

Questionnaire

Appendix – 2: Questionnaire

1.1. Name of the respondent :

1.2. Designation :

1.3. Age :

1.4. Sex :

1.5. Working Experience :

1.6. Name of the Academic /

Research Institution :

1.7. Name of the Library (if any) :

1.8. Year of Establishment :

1.9. Type of the Academic/Research Centre (Please tick the appropriate box)

1.10. Nature of the Academic/ Research Centre (Please tick the appropriate box)

Research Academic / Professional Others

1.11. Please mention the complete mailing address.

Address: City: State: Web site: E-mail: Mobile: Phone:

1.12. Whether the staff is fully qualified? 1.13. Whether the staff possesses necessary ICT qualification?

End of Part 1stof the Questionnaire ******************************

Central Government Aided Private Unaided State Government Aided Autonomous Deemed Others

Yes No

Yes No

PART 1: GENERAL INFORMATION BASED COMMON QUESTIONS This part is mandatory to answer for all three types of libraries.

379

Use and Impact of OSS Among Selected Academic and Research Institute Libraries: A Critical Study of Indian Perspective

Appendix – 2 : Questionnaire

2.1. Are you using the following technologies to communicate with your users? (Choice is allowed)

� Mobile Computing � Cloud Computing � None of the above � Other

2.2. Have you achieved library automation? (Mark only one)

� Yes � No

2.3. What is the status of automation? (Mark only one)

� Fully Automated � Partially Automated � Manual � Others

2.4. Please tick mark the appropriate type of software used in the library? (Mark only one)

� Libraries using Commercial, Customized, In-house, Freeware, Shareware, and other software.

� Libraries using OSS � Libraries using both Open Source and Commercial, Customized, In-house,

etc. software. 2.5. Please tick mark the appropriate Operating System used in your library? (In case of dual OS mark both the OS)

� Windows � Mac � Open Source (OS) � Other

2.6. Please mention the name of the software currently in used, developed by, type, and cost including web hoisting and AMC charges? (Attempt all options, write none if any software not available)

PART 2: LIBRARY AUTOMATION AND SOFTWARE SELECTION

This part is mandatory to answer for all three types of libraries (wherever * mark

appear signify mandatory question).

380



S.N. Area of Automation Software

Name Software

Developed Type of

Software Cost

1 Library Management 2 IR/ Digital Library 3 Content Management 4 Citation Management 5 Journal Management 6 E-Journal Archiving 7 Conference Management 8 Meta/Federated Searching 9 E-learning Management 10 Office Suite 11 Desktop Publishing 12 Media Player 13 Web Browsing 14 Website Download

15 Scientific Computation package for numerical computations

16 Operating System 17 Cloud Computing,

Operating Systems

18 Web Conferencing 19 Plagiarism 20 Optical Character

Recognition OCR

21 Anti-Virus 22 Others

2.7. Before selecting the software for your library did you analyze the cost benefits and alternatives? (Mark only one)

� No, never thought of cost factor or alternatives. � Yes, the software selected is most cost effective. � Don’t know/ no answer.

2.8. Are you aware that Open Source Software (OSS) is offering variety of software required for library without charging any licensing fees and ownership cost? (Mark only one)

� Yes � No

381



2.9. If yes then please select which software would you like to try/opt for your library?* (Mark only one)

1. Library Automation � Koha � NewGenLib � EverGreen � OpenBiblio � WEBLIS1 � PhpMyLibrary � OPALSNA1 � AvantiMicroLCS � ABCD � Emilda � Java Book Cataloguing System � Senayan Library Management System � BiblioteQ � None of the above � Other

2. Digital Library / Institutional Repository � GSDL � DSpace � Ganesha � OpenBiblio � Dienst � VuDL � XTF � Fedora Commons � EPrint � CDS Invenio � Digital Commons � dLibra � DoKS � MyCoRe � Kete � CONTENTdm � OPUS � None of the above � Other

3. Web Development / Content / Knowledge Management System � Joomla � Drupal � Wordpress

382



� DotNetNuke � Mambo � TYPO3 � MaiaCMS � Cushy CMS � Redaxscript � PHPFusion � Kompozer � Plone � PostNuke � Blue Fish � cribLio � Nuxeo � Squiz � EZ Publish � None of the above � Other

4. Citation / Reference / Bibliography Management Software � Aigaion � Bebop � BibDesk � Bibus � Docear � JabRef � KBibTeX � Pybliographer � refbase � RefDB � Referencer � Wikindx � Zotero � None of the above � Other

5. Journal Management / Publishing Software � Ambra � Open ACS � Open Journal System � Public Knowledge Management PKP � None of the above � Other

383



6. Electronic Journal Archiving � CLOCKSS/LOCKSS � None of the above � Other

7. Meta-Searching/Federated Searching � DbWiz � DBwil � Pazpar2 � LibraryFind � Masterkey � None of the above � Other

8. E-Leaning Management System � Moodle � OLAT � ILIAS � ATutor � None of the above � Other

9. Office Suite � LiberOffice � Writer � Calc � Impress � Base � LaTeX � None of the above � Other

10. Desktop Publishing � Scribus � None of the above � Other

11. Media Player/ Flash Media Player � OpenFOAM � Songbird � VLC � JWFlash Player � Flow Player � None of the above

384



� Other

12. Web Browser � Mozilla Firefox � Google Chrome � Thunderbird � None of the above � Other

13. Scientific Computation package for numerical computations � Scilab � None of the above � Other

14. Operating System � Unix/Linux � Ubuntu � Fedora � CentOS � Debian � Linux Mint � Suse � Dream Linux � Red Hat � OpenSUSE � GNU � OpenSolaris � None of the above � Other

15. Server Operating System � RedHat Enterprise Linux � Canonical Ubuntu Server � Centos Linux � Novell Suse Linux � None of the above � Other

16. Cloud Computing Operating Systems � GLIDE � myGoya � KOHIVE � ZIMDESK � CLOUDO

385



� None of the above � Other

17. Web Conferencing � WebHuddle � dimdim � None of the above � Other

18. Plagiarism � Desktop Plagiarism � Lente � Plaggie 1.1 � AntiPlagiarism � Plagiarism Checker X � None of the above � Other

19. OCR (Optical Character Recognition) � Tesseract � Screen Translator � Sanskrit / Hindi Tesseract OCR � Toxin OCR � Terese OCR verifier � Viet OCR � None of the above � Other

20. Anti-Virus � ASSP � Nixory � IPCop � CalmAV � AppArmor � Wireshark � None of the above � Other

2.10. Do you know apart from library automation and digital library software there are other OSS which are helpful for librarians and useful for providing a variety of services to patrons? * (If you are aware of the software from the list, select the known software otherwise select None) (Mark only one)

386



1. Next Generation OPAC's � SOPAC � Vufind � Evergreen � Bluefind � Voyager � None of the above � Other

2. Document Management System � OpenDocMan � OpenKMKnowledge � Management � LogicalDOC DMS � None of the above � Other

3. PDF Document Editing Software � pdfedit � pdfjam � pdfjoin � pdf90 � pdf180 � None of the above � Other

4. Drawing � Draw � None of the above � Other

5. Image Editing and Graphics Designing � GIMP � QCAD � None of the above � Other

6. Audio Video Recording of talks and Editing � OpenEyA � Audacity � Avidemux � Kino � HandBrake � None of the above

387



� Other

7. Web Downloading � HTTrack � None of the above � Other

8. Wiki Management � MediaWiki � CoWiki � Instiki � MoinMoin � PmWiki � Swiki � Twiki � Media Wiki � None of the above � Other

9. Mobile Operating System � Android � None of the above � Other

10. Web Programming/ Language/ Server/ Database Management � Perl � Tel � C � C++ � Java � Javascript � MySQL � PostgreSQL � Pascal � Phyton � Ruby � Apache/ Samba/ PHP � None of the above � Other

11. Instant Messaging � Pidgin � None of the above � Other

388



12. Screen Casting � CamStudio � Webibaria � None of the above � Other

13. Online Survey � LimeSurvey � None of the above � Other

14. Portable Apps � Portableapps � None of the above � Other

15. Social Networking � BuddyPress � None of the above � Other

16. Project Management � dotProject � None of the above � Other

17. Library Apps � Reference Stats � Ebook Library Management � None of the above � Other

18. Virtual Machine � VirtualBox � Xen � Linux KVM � None of the above � Other

19. Animation and Computer Graphics � Blender � None of the above � Other

389



20. Video Editing � Avidemux � HandBrake � None of the above � Other

21. e-mail Server � Zarafa � None of the above � Other

22. Search Engine � Lucene/ Solr � Xapian � None of the above � Other

23. Workflow, Forms and Case Management � Nuxeo � Foxopen � None of the above � Other

24. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) � OpenERP � Openbravo � None of the above � Other

2.11. Would you like to adopt the above other OSS and known software? * � Yes � No

2.12. If yes, then please tick mark the reasons/problems in the appropriate box? (Attempt all the options, tick mark only one) (5= Very Major, 4= Major, 3=Neutral, 2= Minor, 1= Very Minor)

Reasons Rank

Source code is open 5 4 3 2 1 Easy to install, modify and maintain 5 4 3 2 1 Availability of training, workshop, forum, community, guidance and documentation 5 4 3 2 1

Cost effective 5 4 3 2 1 International Standards 5 4 3 2 1 Free from vendor locking 5 4 3 2 1

390



Scalability & Interoperability 5 4 3 2 1 Ability to fit any type of the library 5 4 3 2 1 Web-enabled and user-friendly 5 4 3 2 1 Hardware Compatibility 5 4 3 2 1

2.13. If no, then please tick mark the reasons/problems in the appropriate box? (Mark all the options, Mark only one) (5= Very Major, 4= Major, 3=Neutral, 2= Minor, 1= Very Minor)

Reasons Rank

Lack of reliability, longevity, technical and community support

5 4 3 2 1

No vendor policy and no accountability 5 4 3 2 1 Training and documentation insufficient 5 4 3 2 1 Does not support Windows effectively 5 4 3 2 1 Hard to convince the authorities 5 4 3 2 1 Concern about software & data security 5 4 3 2 1 Lack of technical knowledge required to Install & Maintain

5 4 3 2 1

End of Part 2ndof the Questionnaire ******************************

391



3.1. Please tick mark the criteria for selecting the software? * (Choice is allowed)

� Randomly selected � Suggested by colleagues � Selected by College/ Institutional authorities. � Seen the demonstration and agreed to purchase/ adopt. � Other

3.2. Are you satisfied with the selection? * (Mark only one)

� Yes � No

3.3. If yes, then what are the reasons? (Choice is allowed)

� I have not selected so I am least concern. � It gives me all the reports required for inspection and covers all functions. � Support is powerful 24 x 7. � It responds quickly and user-friendly. � Upgradations on regular basis. � Onsite support for fixing errors and bugs. � Other

3.4. If no, then what are the reasons? (Choice is allowed)

� Modifications are impossible unless considered and amended in the next version. � Every single support is being charged. � Instance amendment is impossible. � Customization is limited. � Remote support is not satisfactory. � Very costly and unable to pay AMC. � No up gradation and online support. � Doesn't respond quickly and hung up. � Other

PART 3: LIBRARIES USING COMMERCIAL, IN-HOUSE DEVELOPED, CUSTOMIZED, FREEWARE, SHAREWARE AND PUBLIC DOMAIN SOFTWARE. This part is mandatory to answer only for first type library using Proprietary/

Commercial Software (wherever * mark appear signify mandatory question).

392



3.5. Do you know the following facts about OSS? * (Choice is allowed)

� Free to download. � No license fees. � Source Code is open � Usage, Modifications, and Redistribution is possible. � Other

3.6. Have you attended any workshop/ hands-on practice on OSS? * (Mark only one)

� Yes � No

3.7. What is your impact after attending the workshop/ hands-on practice? (Choice is allowed)

� Excellent and would like to implement in my library. � I don’t have enough resources to implement it. � Lack of confidence, not sure whether the system will survive or fail. � Require more exposure, training, and support of authorities. � Other

3.8. On the basis of your handling of OSS do you think that OSS will replace the Commercial, In-house, Customize etc. software in the near future? * (1-Partially Agree, 2-Fully Agree, 3-Partially Disagree, 4-Fully Disagree, 5-Neither Agree Nor Disagree)

Partially Agree

Fully Agree Partially Disagree

Fully Disagree

Neither Agree nor

Disagree � 1 � 2 � 3 � 4 � 5

3.9. Please tick mark the following areas where Commercial, Customize, In-house, Shareware, Freeware, and Public Domain software needs improvement? * (Choice is allowed)

� Lack of International Standards e.g. MARC, Z39.50, ISO 2709, etc. � Latest Programming Language to keep pace with the speed/response of the

software. � Software Test: Bugs and Error. � Uninterrupted technical support and maintenance of software. � Migration of data. � User controlled customization. � Scalability: Single user, Multi-use network, etc. � Customized report generation. � None of the above � Other

393



3.10. Please rate your opinions on the use of open source in comparison with other software? * (Attempt all options, Mark, only one per row)

Opinions

Ext

rem

ely

Satis

fied

Satis

fied

Neu

tral

Dis

satis

fied

Ext

rem

ely

Dis

satis

fied

OSS is complex in nature. OSS needs exhaustive training & expertise in IT.

We cannot hold anybody responsible in OSS.

Fixing of bugs and troubleshoots take a lot of time.

OSS is not more effective than Commercial/ In-house/ Customized & other Software.

In OSS no AMC is to be paid compared to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized & other Software.

Forums, Community Support, online links, and chats do solve bugs and errors.

OSS has affected the market of Commercial, In-house, Customized, etc. software.

Many libraries are now opting to OSS in comparison to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized & other Software.

OSS is more standard compliant than Commercial/ In-house/ Customized etc.

Reports are very exhaustive in OSS compare to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized & other Software.

OSS is more advanced and capable of meeting today's requirement as compared to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized & other Software.

Up-gradation and release of new versions keep OSS more relevant compare to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized & other Software.

394



3.11. Your negative comments on adopting Commercial, Customize, In-house, Shareware, Freeware, and Public Domain Software? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.12. Your positive comments on adopting Commercial, Customize, In-house, Shareware, Freeware, and Public Domain Software? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

End of Part 3rd of the Questionnaire ******************************

395



4.1. What are the reasons for selecting/migrating to OSS? Please tick mark the in the appropriate box? * (Attempt all options, Mark only one) (5= Very Major, 4= Major, 3=Neutral, 2= Minor, 1= Very Minor)

Reasons Rank Decision of library committee 5 4 3 2 1 Your own decision 5 4 3 2 1 Not satisfied with the commercial/earlier software 5 4 3 2 1 Convinced with what OSS is offering 5 4 3 2 1 Budget cuts & International Standards 5 4 3 2 1 Open Source Code, easy to modify, customize, and availability of documentation 5 4 3 2 1

Quick installation, no maintenance, no licensing fees, and relief from vendor locking 5 4 3 2 1

Concern about closing/merging of proprietary software

5 4 3 2 1

Concern about unconditional hike in prices of proprietary software 5 4 3 2 1

Technical support from community, forum, mailing list 5 4 3 2 1

Flexibility, Scalability and Interoperability 5 4 3 2 1 Hardware Compatibility 5 4 3 2 1 Ability to fit any type of library 5 4 3 2 1 User friendly & web enabled 5 4 3 2 1 Exhaustive and Customize reports 5 4 3 2 1

4.2. According to you, what are the reasons that OSS is not widely accepted in Indian conditions?* (Attempt all options, Mark, only one oval per row) (5= Very Major, 4= Major, 3=Neutral, 2= Minor, 1= Very Minor)

Reasons Rank Hard to convince authorities 5 4 3 2 1 No proper marketing 5 4 3 2 1 Concern about software and data security 5 4 3 2 1

PART 4: LIBRARIES USING OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE (OSS)

This part is mandatory to answer for second type of library using Open Source

Software (OSS) only (wherever * mark appear signify mandatory question).

396



Lack of technical knowledge required to install and maintain

5 4 3 2 1

Concern about long time support, reliability, technical support, community support, vendor support, training & documentation

5 4 3 2 1

4.3. Which Open Source operating system are you using? Please rate your competency in the appropriate box? * (Mark only one oval per row) (A= Beginner, B= Partially Known, C= Fully Known, D= Intent Learning, E=No Reply)

Operating System B

egin

ner

Part

ially

K

now

n

Fully

K

now

n

Inte

nt

Lea

rnin

g

No

Rep

ly

Unix/Linux Ubuntu Fedora Suse Dream Linux Red Hat CentOS Debian OpenSUSE GNU Other

4.4. Please rate your competency with OSS programming languages? * (Attempt all the options, Mark only one oval per row) (A= Beginner, B= Partially Known, C= Fully Known, D= No Reply)

Operating System Beginner Partially Known

Fully Known

No Reply

Perl MySQL PostgreSQL Phyton Ruby Apache/ Samba/ PHP C C++ Java Javascript Pascal Tel

397



4.5. Please, rate your level of satisfaction with the competency using OSS and its functioning in the appropriate box? * (Attempt all options, Mark, only one oval per row) (A= Excellent, B= Fair, C= Neutral, D=Very Poor, E= Poor, F= Never Experienced)

S.N. OSS Category-wise

Exc

elle

nt

Fair

Neu

tral

Poor

Ver

y

Poor

Nev

er

Exp

erie

nced

1 Library Management

2 Next Generation OPACs

3 IR/ Digital Library 4 Content

Management

5 Citation Management

6 Document Management

7 Journal Management

8 PDF Document Editing Software

9 E-Journal Archiving

10 Conference Management

11 Meta/Federated Searching

12 E-learning Management

13 Office Suite 14 Desktop

Publishing

15 Drawing 16 Media Player 17 Photo Editor 18 Image Editing &

Graphic Design

19 Animation & Computer Graphics

398



20 Audio-Video Recording of Talks & Editing

21 Web Browsing 22 Website Download 23 Scientific

Computation package for numerical computations

24 Wiki Management 25 OS/ Mobile OS 26 Cloud Computing,

Operating Systems

27 Web Conferencing 28 Web/Language

Programing

29 Instant Messaging 30 Screen Casting 31 Online Survey 32 Portable Apps 33 Video Editing 34 Social Network 35 Project

Management

36 Library Apps 37 Virtual Machine 38 Plagiarism 39 OCR 40 Anti-Virus

4.6. Please specify any modifications required by you in any of the OSS? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.7. Please specify the mode of acquiring knowledge about OSS? * (Choice is allowed)

� Through Seminar/ Conference � Hands-on practice through Workshops � Training through software expert � Through forum/ community � Through videos available on the Internet

399



� Self evaluation on trial and error basis � Other

4.8. Do you or your library arrange any promotional activity/program for spreading the awareness of OSS? * (Choice is allowed)

� Conference/ Seminar/ Workshop � Webinars � LDP Programs � Lecture Series � Group/ Forum/ Links � Publication of Journal � None of the above � Other

4.9. What kind of role would you/ your institution like to play to propagate the use of OSS? * (Choice is allowed)

� Arranging training for staff and others regarding Installation, Maintenance, � Troubleshooting and backups � Putting across modifications � Work as a developer/ administrator/ Programmer � Joining groups/ forums/ links/ online discussions and giving solutions to the

queries � Try my best to do all mention above � No reply � Other

4.10. How do you manage problems faced while operating OSS? Please tick mark in the appropriate box? * (Attempt all options, Mark, only one oval per row) (A= Self-Management, B=Outsourcing, C=IT Expert, D= Mailing List, E= Online Video, F=Liblive CD, G= Other)

Problems faced handling OSS S

elf-

Man

agem

ent

Out

Sou

rcin

g

IT E

xper

t/ C

olle

ague

/ Fr

iend

Mai

ling

list/

Com

mun

ity/

Foru

m/ L

ink

Onl

ine

Vid

eo/

blog

/ tut

oria

l

Lib

Liv

e C

D/

Wor

ksho

p

Any

Oth

er

Sour

ce

Downloading & Installation

Modifications, Customization

Hosting, Installation on Server & Client Machines

400



Staff explanation & practice

Data Migration & Backup Troubleshooting Downloading of patch files and plug-ins

Security Measures Functioning of Modules Technical Support Latest Updates

4.11. Please register your response to the observations on OSS in the appropriate box? (Attempt all options, Mark, only one oval per row) (A=Extremely Satisfied, B=Satisfied, C=Neutral, D=Extremely Dissatisfied, E= Dissatisfied)

Observations

Ext

rem

ely

Satis

fied

Satis

fied

Neu

tral

Ext

rem

ely

Dis

satis

fied

Dis

satis

fied

OSS is getting momentum in Indian conditions

OSS shall be included in BLIS, MLIS, Syllabus or a practical paper to introduce

Library Professionals are expected to contribute in creating awareness and conducting workshops

OSS is good at budget constraint libraries and also extends technical support at no cost

OSS increases competition among contemporaries & service providers.

OSS helps setting International Standards across the country

OSS is an alternative to proprietary/ commercial software

Choosing OSS enables sharing of knowledge and skills among professionals

OSS is expandable and suitable for any type of libraries

401



4.12. Please tick mark the in the appropriate box, impact before and after adopting OSS? (Attempt all options, mark only one oval per row) (5= Very Major, 4= Major, 3=Neutral, 2= Minor, 1= Very Minor)

Reasons Rank

Saves Time 5 4 3 2 1 Increases efficiency 5 4 3 2 1 Quality Enhancement 5 4 3 2 1 More Options and Functions 5 4 3 2 1 Satisfies all needs 5 4 3 2 1 Suitable utility 5 4 3 2 1 Saves AMC 5 4 3 2 1 Customization Possible 5 4 3 2 1 Less Errors 5 4 3 2 1 Speed 5 4 3 2 1 Searching Facilities 5 4 3 2 1 Backup 5 4 3 2 1 Data Security 5 4 3 2 1

4.13.Your positive comments on selecting OSS? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4.14.Your negative comments on selecting OSS? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

End of Part 4th of the Questionnaire ******************************

402



5.1. Please tick mark the criteria for selecting the software? (Choice is allowed)

� Randomly selected � Suggested by colleagues � Selected by College/ Institutions authorities. � Seen the demonstration and agreed to purchase/ adopt. � Any other please specify

5.2. Are you satisfied with the selection? (Mark only one)

Yes No 5.3. If yes, then what are the reasons? (Choice is allowed)

� I have not selected so I am least concern � It gives me all the reports required for inspection and covers all the function. � Support is powerful 24 x 7 � It responds quickly and is user-friendly � Up-gradation is on regular bases � On-site support for fixing errors and bugs � Any other please specify…

5.4. If no, then what are the reasons? (Choice is allowed)

� Modifications are impossible unless considered and amended in next version. � Every single support is being charged � Instance amendment is impossible � Customization is limited � Remote support is not satisfactory � Very costly and unable to pay AMC � No up-gradation and no online support � Doesn’t respond quickly and hung up

Part 5: Libraries using both Open Source Software and Commercial, In-

house Developed, Customized, Freeware, Shareware and Public Domain

Software.

This part is mandatory to answer only for third type of library using OSS and

Commercial software (wherever * mark appear signify mandatory question).

403



� Any other please specify 5.5. Have you attended any workshop/ hands-on practice on OSS? (Mark only one)

Yes No 5.6. What is your impact after attending the workshop/ hands-on practice? (Choice is allowed)

� Excellent and would like to implement in my library � I don’t have enough resources to implement it � Lack of confidence, not sure whether the system will survive or fail � Require more exposure, training, and support of the authorities � Other

5.7. What are the reasons for selecting/migrating to OSS? Please tick mark the in the appropriate box? (Attempt all options, mark only one oval per row) (5= Very Major, 4= Major, 3=Neutral, 2= Minor, 1= Very Minor)

Reasons Rank Decision of library committee 5 4 3 2 1 Your own decision. 5 4 3 2 1 Not satisfied with the commercial/earlier software 5 4 3 2 1 Convince with what OSS is offering. 5 4 3 2 1 Budget cuts & International Standards 5 4 3 2 1 Open Source Code, easy to modify, customization, and availability of documentation 5 4 3 2 1

Quick installation, no maintenance, no licensing fees, and relief from vendor locking 5 4 3 2 1

Concern about closing/merging of proprietary software

5 4 3 2 1

Concern about unconditional hike in prices of proprietary software 5 4 3 2 1

Technical support from community, forum, mailing list. 5 4 3 2 1

Flexibility, Scalability and Interoperability 5 4 3 2 1 Hardware Compatibility 5 4 3 2 1 Ability to fit to any type of library 5 4 3 2 1 User friendly & web enabled 5 4 3 2 1 Exhaustive and customize reports 5 4 3 2 1

404



5.8. How do you manage problems faced while using OSS? (Attempt all options, mark only one oval per row) (A= Self-Management, B=Outsourcing, C=IT Expert, D= Mailing List, E= Online Video, F=Liblive CD)

Problems faced handling OSS S

elf-

Man

agem

ent

Out

Sou

rcin

g

IT E

xper

t/ C

olle

ague

/ Fr

iend

Mai

ling

list/

Com

mun

ity/

Foru

m/ L

ink

Onl

ine

Vid

eo/

blog

/ tut

oria

l

Lib

Liv

e C

D/

Wor

ksho

p

Downloading & Installation Modifications, Customization Hosting, Installation on Server & Client Machines

Staff explanation & practice Data Migration & Backup Troubleshooting Downloading of patch files and plug-ins

Security Measures Functioning of Modules Technical Support Latest Updates

5.9. Please register your response to the observations on OSS in the appropriate box? (Attempt all options, mark only one oval per row) (A=Extremely satisfied, B=Satisfied, C=Neutral, D=Extremely Dissatisfied, E= Dissatisfied)

Observations

Ext

rem

ely

Satis

fied

Satis

fied

Neu

tral

Ext

rem

ely

Dis

satis

fied

Dis

satis

fied

OSS is getting momentum in Indian conditions.

OSS shall be included in BLIS, MLIS, Syllabus or a practical paper to introduce.

Library Professionals are expected to contribute in creating awareness and conducting workshops.

OSS is good at budget constraint libraries and also extends

405



technical support at no cost. OSS increases competition among contemporaries & service providers.

OSS helps setting International Standards across the country.

OSS is an alternative to proprietary/ commercial software

Choosing OSS enables sharing of knowledge and skills among professional.

OSS is expandable and suitable for any type of libraries

The security of data & software is reliable than proprietary/ commercial software.

Indian Libraries are advised to come up with network model for OSS

5.10. Please tick mark the in the appropriate box, impact before and after adopting OSS? (Attempt all options, mark only one oval per row) (5= Very Major, 4= Major, 3=Neutral, 2= Minor, 1= Very Minor)

Reasons Rank Saves Time 5 4 3 2 1 Increases efficiency 5 4 3 2 1 Quality Enhancement 5 4 3 2 1 More Options and Functions 5 4 3 2 1 Satisfies all needs 5 4 3 2 1 Suitable utility 5 4 3 2 1 Saves AMC 5 4 3 2 1 Customization Possible 5 4 3 2 1 Less Errors 5 4 3 2 1 Speed 5 4 3 2 1 Searching Facilities 5 4 3 2 1 Backup 5 4 3 2 1 Data Security 5 4 3 2 1

5.11. On the basis of your handling of other and OSS do you think that OSS will replace the Commercial, In-house, Customize and other software in the near future. (Mark only one)

406



Partially Agree

Fully Agree Partially Disagree

Fully Disagree

Neither Agree nor

Disagree � 1 � 2 � 3 � 4 � 5

5.12. Mention below the reasons that you would like to continue using both OSS and Commercial and other software? (Choice is allowed)

� There is no necessity apart from Library Management software to use other software.

� I am/ Library is not equipped/ trained using other OSS � The management had already purchased other than OSS � I am comfortable with certain OSS and using it � I am running certain OSS on windows and comfortable using both OSS and

Commercial and other software � I am using the dual operating system and managing both (OSS and

Commercial) software successfully � None of the above � Any other, please specify…

5.13. Please rate your opinions on the use of OSS? (Attempt all options, mark only one oval per row) (A= Fully Agree, B= Partially Agree, C= Fully Disagree, D= Partially Disagree, E=Neither Agree Nor Disagree)

Opinions Fully Agree

Partially

Agree

Fully Disag

ree

Partially

Disagree

Neither Agree Nor

Disagree OSS is complex in nature OSS needs exhaustive training & expertise in IT

We cannot hold anybody responsible in OSS

Fixing of bugs and troubleshoots takes a lot of time

OSS is not more effective than Commercial/ In-house/ Customized & other Software

In OSS no AMC is to be paid compared to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized & other Software

Forums, Community Support, online links, and chats do solve the bugs and errors

407



OSS has affected the market of Commercial, In-house, Customized, etc. software

Many libraries are now opting to OSS in comparison to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized & other Software

OSS is more standard compliant than Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other

Reports are very exhaustive in OSS compare to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other software

OSS is more advanced and capable of meeting today's requirement than compare to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other software

Up-gradation and release of new versions keep OSS more relevant compared to Commercial/ In-house/ Customized and other software

End of Part 5th of the Questionnaire ******************************

408

Appendix: 3

Useful OSS for

Libraries

Appendix – 3

Useful Open Source Software for Libraries

OSS Software Name

Developed by Version & License URL Address to Download

Library Automation

Koha Katipo Communication

3.22.7, GNU GPL https://koha-community.org/download-koha/

NewGenLib Verus Solutions 3.1.2, GNU GPL http://www.verussolutions.biz/web/content/download

Evergreen Georgia Public Library Service (GPLS)

2.10.0, GNU GPLv2

https://evergreen-ils.org/egdownloads/

Openbiblio Openbiblio Development Team

0.7.2, GNU GPLv2 https://sourceforge.net/projects/obiblio/files/

ABCD BIREME and VLIR 2.0, LGPLv3 http://abcd.netcat.be/files/downloads.html

Digital Library / Institutional Repository

DSpace MIT and HP 5.3, BDS http://www.dspace.org/latest-release

GSDL New Zealand Digital Library Project

3.3.07, GNP GPL v2

http://www.greenstone.org/download

Ganesha Indonesian Digital Library Network

4.0, GNU GPL http://kmrg.itb.ac.id/

EPrints University of Southampton

3.3.13, GPL http://www.eprints.org/uk/index.php/eprints-software/

409


Appendix – 3: Useful OSS for Libraries

OSS Software Name


Fedora DuraSpace 4.1.0, Apache License 2

http://fedora-commons.org/download

Web Development / Content / Knowledge Management System

Joomla Joomla Project Team 3.5.1, GNU GPL https://www.joomla.org/download.html

Drupal Dries Buytaert 8.1.1, GPLv2 https://www.drupal.org/download

WordPress WordPress Foundation

4.5.2, GNU GPLv2 https://wordpress.org/download/

Citation / Reference / Bibliography Management System

Zotero Center for History and New Media

4.0.29, AGPL https://www.zotero.org/download/

Journal Management / Publishing Software

OJS Public Knowledge Project

2.4.8, GNU GPL https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/ojs_download/

Electronic Journal Archiving

CLOCKSS CLOCKSS team NA https://www.lockss.org/support/build-a-lockss-box/

Meta-Searching / Federated Searching

Pazpar2 Index Data 2, GNU GPL http://ftp.indexdata.dk/pub/pazpar2/

E-Learning Management System

Moodle Martin Dougiamas 3.1, GPLv3 https://download.moodle.org/

410



OSS Software Name


Office Suite

LiberOffice Document Foundation

5.13, GNU GPL https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-fresh/

Desktop Publishing

Scribus Scribus Team 1.4.6, GNU GPLv2 https://www.scribus.net/downloads/stable-branch/

Media Player / Flash Media Player

VLC VideoLAN 2.2.4, GNU LGPL https://www.videolan.org/vlc/

Web Browser

Mozilla Firefox Mozilla Foundation 46, MPL https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/

Scientific Computation Package for Numerical Computations

Scilab Scilab Enterprises 5.5.2, CeCILL (GPL)

http://www.scilab.org/download/latest

Operating System

Ubuntu Ubuntu Community 16.4, GNU GPL http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/

Server Operating System

RedHat Enterprise Linux

Red Hat Inc. 7.2, GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)

https://idp.redhat.com/idp/

Cloud Computing Operating Systems

Zimdesk Zimdesk Ltd. NA, GNU GPL http://www.zimcompany.com/zimdesk/

411



OSS Software Name


Web Conferencing

WebHuddle John McCaughey 0.4.9., GNU GPL https://sourceforge.net/projects/webhuddle/

Plagiarism

Plaggie1.1 Lawan Subba 1.1., GNU GPL v2 https://sourceforge.net/projects/plaggie/

Optical Character Recognition (OCR)

Tesseract Google 3.04.01, Apache License v2.0

https://github.com/tesseract-ocr/tesseract

Anti-Virus

AppArmor Canonical Ltd. 2.9.1., GNU GPL https://launchpad.net/apparmor/2.9/2.9.3/+download/apparmor-2.9.3.tar.gz.asc

Next Generation OPAC

VuFind Villanova University 3.0, GNU GPL http://vufind-org.github.io/vufind/downloads.html

Document Management System

LogicalDOC LogicalDOC Srl 7.4.2. GNU GPL 2 ` http://www.logicaldoc.com/download-logicaldoc-community.html

PDF Document Editing Software

PDFedit Michal Hocko, etc. 0.4.5. GNU GPL http://pdfedit.cz/en/download.html

Draw

Draw Heado 1.5. GNU GPLv2 https://sourceforge.net/projects/draw/files/latest/download? source=files

412



OSS Software Name


Image Editing and Graphic Designing

GIMP Spencer Kimball, etc. 2.8.16GNU GPLv3 http://www.gimp.org/downloads/

Audio Video Recording of Talks and Editing

Audacity Audacity Team 2.1.2. GNU GPLv2 http://www.audacityteam.org/download/

Web Downloading

HTTrack Xavier Roche 3.48-21, GNU GPL http://www.httrack.com/page/2/

Wiki Management

Media Wiki Wikimedia Foundation

1.26.3, GPL v2+ https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Download

Mobile Operating System

Android Google Marshmallow GPLv2

https://android.com/intl/en_in/play/

Web Programming / Language / Server / Database Management

PHP Zend Technologies 7.0.7. PHP License https://secure.php.net/downloads.php

Instant Messaging

Pidgin Mark Spenser 2.10.12. GNU GPL https://pidgin.im/download/

Screen Printing

CamStudio Nickthgeek 2.7.2. GNU GPL https://sourceforge.net/projects/camstudio/

Online Survey

LimeSurvey Carsten Schmitz 2.50, GNU GPL https://www.limesurvey.org/

413



OSS Software Name


Portable Apps

PortableApps Rare Ideas, LLC 14.0, GNU GPLv2 http://portableapps.com/download

Social Networking

BuddyPress John Jacoby 2.5.2, GNU GPLv2 https://buddypress.org/download/

Project Management

dotProject Adam Donnison 2.1.8, GNU GPLv2 https://buddypress.org/download/

LibraryApps

E-Book Library Management Calibre

Kovid Goyal 2.57.1. GNU GPLv3

https://www.calibre-ebook.com/download

Virtual Machine

VirtualBox Oracle Corporation 5.0.20.28, GNU GPL v2

https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads

Animation and Computer Graphics

Blender Blender Foundation 2.7.7a, GNU GPLv2 https://www.blender.org/download/

e-Mail Server

Zarafa Zarafa BV 7.1.14, AGPL https://community.zarafa.com/

Search Engine

Lucene/ Solr Apache Software Foundation

6.0.1. Apache License 2.0

http://lucene.apache.org/

414



OSS Software Name


Workflow / Forms and Case Management

Nuxeo (case management)

Nuxeo LTS, Apache 2.0 http://www.nuxeo.com/

FoxOpen (workflow)

Benbasson 4.5.27. BSD License

http://www.foxopen.net/Download

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

Odoo (OpenERP) Fabien Pinckaers 9.0.1. GNU GPLv3 https://www.odoo.com/page/download

415

Appendix: 4

Publication

Appendix – 4: Abstract of Publications Publication – 1

CUTTING THE PROPRIETARY CORD, PARADIGM SHIFT & SOFT

SOLUTION FOR LIBRARIES: It’s OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE

Pangal Zuber Abdul Majeed* Researcher, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University

Yahswantrao Mohite College, Pune [email protected]

Dr. V.S. Mugade

Dept. Head, BVDU’s Yahswantrao Mohite College, Pune [email protected]

Abstract:

Previously libraries were considered as a storehouse of books and librarians as

custodians. Knowledge was available only in book format later the libraries progress and

sea change has been seen from manual operation of library to automate, hybrid,

electronic and now digital. In this age of acquiring technical and scientific knowledge,

information and communication technology transformed from textual to online learning.

For the management of information, digitization, and automation require standard

software. The commercial software was the only alternative until the emergence of Open

Source Software. Today the budget constraint and even the fully funded libraries are

adopting Open Source Software due to its standardized operations and versatility.

Various National and International government and agencies are also promoting the use

of Open Source Software. This paper advocates the use of Open Source Software and

explains what OSS is all about and his superiority over commercial counterpart.

Keywords: Open Source Software, Closed source Software, IR/Digital Library, Library

Management, CMS, Document Management, e-Learning Management, GNU-GPL

License.

This article is printed in a book ‘Advanced Applications of ICT in Academic Libraries’

edited by Dr. Dharmaraj K. Veer, published as a festschrift volume in honor of Dr. N. B.

Dahibhate on the eve of his retirement (Pangal Zuber & Mugade V.S, 2016).

416


Appendix – 3: Abstract of Publications

Publication - 2

Challenges, Opportunities and Prospects of Open Source Software in Libraries

Pangal Zuber Abdul Majeed*

Researcher, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University’s Yashwantrao Mohite College, Pune

Dr.V.S. Mugade

Librarian and Head, Department of Library and Information Science Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University’s

Yashwantrao Mohite College, Pune

Abstract

Open source has brought a significant change in the software world. The share of open

source has increased in software industry by many folds. It has benefitted many sectors

including libraries and it has been widely used as far as functioning and rendering

service in libraries. When any new phenomenon occurs it is usually perceived as a

challenge, opportunity or with doubt! Open source has entirely replaced commercial

software and provided the enormous amount of freedom for libraries. It is now up to

libraries to grab the opportunity and implement it without any hesitation. There could be

many dissatisfaction and problems associated with it and the author has outlined these

difficulties into challenges, opportunities and prospects. In the preceding article, these

hurdles have been discussed in detail.

Keywords

Open Source Software (OSS), Free Software Foundation (FSF), Open Source Initiative

(OSI), OSS - Challenges, Opportunities and Prospects

This article published in ‘Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (AJMS)’ a monthly

international journal. It’s a multidisciplinary journal publishes peer reviewed articles on

the subjects such as Ayurveda, Biochemistry, Biotechnology, Botany, Chemistry,

Computer Science, Economics, Engineering, and Library and Information Science, etc.

(Pangal & Mugade V.S, 2016).

417


Appendix – 3: Abstract of Publications REFERENCES Pangal Zuber, & Mugade V.S. (2016). Cutting the Propreitary Cord, Paradigm Shift and

Soft Solutions for Libraries: Its Open Source Software. In D. Veer, Advanced

applications of ICT in Academic Libraries (pp. 124-137). New Delhi: AGRI-

BIOVET PRESS.

Pangal Zuber, & Mugade V.S. (2016, July 1). Challenges, Opportunities and Prospects

of Open Source Software in Libraries. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies,

4(7).

418

use and impact of open source softwares (oss)

Documents

Transcript of use and impact of open source softwares (oss)