And this is why I don't use the term "open source" anymore. The "top 5 reasons to use open source" are all completely disconnected and don't really have any logical progression from the "ideals of open source" ("open source" doesn't have an ideology). Why libraries should use free software is a much more straightforward list:
1. Free software means that libraries can be assured that they can continue running on the same software and freely maintain it, without needing to worry about downgrades or license agreements.
2. Free software means that libraries can collaborate on improving the software they use (and help one another to run their libraries efficiently) without violating a proprietary license agreement.
3. Libraries are meant to be stewards of knowledge, and proprietary software takes away your ability to learn about software. Free software solves this problem, for the patrons as well as the librarians.
4. The reading history of an individual should remain private, and there is no way for a library to be sure of this without using free software. A reading history that can be used as evidence threatens human rights.
5. A library running on free software cannot ever be pressured by developers to stop distributing some form of book. As libraries are a primary source of information and knowledge, this is a freedom of speech issue and can only truly be solved by free software.
All of the above list clearly links to the four fundamental freedoms (with emphasis on my own politics). But that's why I invite everyone to refer to free software by it's proper name.
Free software means that libraries can be assured that they can continue running on the same software and freely maintain it, without needing to worry about downgrades or license agreements.
While true in principle, that doesn't happen very often. A large open source application that's abandoned by it's maintainer(s) will die very quickly, and it's hard to find someone who'll take on the job of maintaining it even if you're willing to pay. Of course, using a closed source alternative will have the same issue, but without the possibility of someone taking over, so it's worse.
The ideal course is to use an application, regardless of license, that supports an open standard for importing and exporting your data so you're not locked in; that way you can transition everything to an alternative application should things go wrong.
While true in principle, that doesn't happen very often. A large open source application that's abandoned by it's maintainer(s) will die very quickly, and it's hard to find someone who'll take on the job of maintaining it even if you're willing to pay.
While that does happen, you get people forking the original project and so on. And it should be noted that if a piece of software works "well enough" then there isn't really a need to update every two weeks -- the software works and don't touch it. If there's a bug that's bothering them, then you can absolutely pay a contractor to modify the code and fix the bug (that's what contractors do). Obviously the contractor wouldn't be happy to implement huge new features, but that's why you should fund the original project so it doesn't die.
Imho, it is most important that the standards for information interchange are open. Which is usually the case with open-source software, and is too often not the case with proprietary software.
Preferably being either RFCs, part of a free and open working group, or at the very least ceded to the public domain in an automatic and timely manor once maintenance has ceased.
Comments
And this is why I don't use the term "open source" anymore. The "top 5 reasons to use open source" are all completely disconnected and don't really have any logical progression from the "ideals of open source" ("open source" doesn't have an ideology). Why libraries should use free software is a much more straightforward list:
1. Free software means that libraries can be assured that they can continue running on the same software and freely maintain it, without needing to worry about downgrades or license agreements.
2. Free software means that libraries can collaborate on improving the software they use (and help one another to run their libraries efficiently) without violating a proprietary license agreement.
3. Libraries are meant to be stewards of knowledge, and proprietary software takes away your ability to learn about software. Free software solves this problem, for the patrons as well as the librarians.
4. The reading history of an individual should remain private, and there is no way for a library to be sure of this without using free software. A reading history that can be used as evidence threatens human rights.
5. A library running on free software cannot ever be pressured by developers to stop distributing some form of book. As libraries are a primary source of information and knowledge, this is a freedom of speech issue and can only truly be solved by free software.
All of the above list clearly links to the four fundamental freedoms (with emphasis on my own politics). But that's why I invite everyone to refer to free software by it's proper name.
Free software means that libraries can be assured that they can continue running on the same software and freely maintain it, without needing to worry about downgrades or license agreements.
While true in principle, that doesn't happen very often. A large open source application that's abandoned by it's maintainer(s) will die very quickly, and it's hard to find someone who'll take on the job of maintaining it even if you're willing to pay. Of course, using a closed source alternative will have the same issue, but without the possibility of someone taking over, so it's worse.
The ideal course is to use an application, regardless of license, that supports an open standard for importing and exporting your data so you're not locked in; that way you can transition everything to an alternative application should things go wrong.
While that does happen, you get people forking the original project and so on. And it should be noted that if a piece of software works "well enough" then there isn't really a need to update every two weeks -- the software works and don't touch it. If there's a bug that's bothering them, then you can absolutely pay a contractor to modify the code and fix the bug (that's what contractors do). Obviously the contractor wouldn't be happy to implement huge new features, but that's why you should fund the original project so it doesn't die.
Imho, it is most important that the standards for information interchange are open. Which is usually the case with open-source software, and is too often not the case with proprietary software.
Open, and //free to implement//.
Preferably being either RFCs, part of a free and open working group, or at the very least ceded to the public domain in an automatic and timely manor once maintenance has ceased.