SirsiDynix Report on Open Source: Promoting Debate or Sowing Fear?

Marketing document from ILS vendor touches off a flurry of reaction

Josh Hadro -- Library Journal, 10/30/2009

• Document gives vendor's view of "the other side" of open source promotion
• Open source advocates say report spreads "fear, uncertainty, and doubt"
• Some not unsympathetic to Abram's view, but question his style

Late last night, news of a document from SirsiDynix VP of Innovation Stephen Abram slamming open source library systems began circulating via Twitter. Within a day, it has drawn much commentary, both pointed and cautious, from those in the heated debate between open source and proprietary integrated library system (ILS) software.

Abram’s "Integrated Library System Platforms on Open Source," [PDF] lists 15 "assertions that proponents of open source claim as the strengths of open source," then offers the author's rebuttals of each. He warns readers caveat emptor, or buyer beware, specifically mentioning open source library systems Evergreen and Koha, and concludes that, "at the current production cycle, jumping into open source would be dangerous, at best."

Though originally described as a leak and posted anonymously on Wikileaks, Abram told LJ that the 11-page document was never a secret and that it had been distributed in the last few weeks to customers asking "for the other side of the [open source/proprietary software] story." Abram today posted the document on his blog, Stephen's Lighthouse, which has drawn numerous comments.

While open source advocates chastised Abram for his commentary, others not unsympathetic to his general point, notably Marshall Breeding, Clifford Lynch, and Carl Grant, suggested that his presentation and rhetoric detracted from his message.

(Follow full reaction on the Code4Lib wiki.)

Dismay from open source advocates
Open source advocates reacted with dismay. It "spreads a fantastic amount of fear, uncertainty and doubt about both open source software in general and, more specifically, the suitability of open source integrated library systems," wrote Mark A. Matienzo, an applications developer at the New York Public Library, in an early post (The Secret Mirror) on the report echoed by dozens of shorter comments on Twitter and on Jessamyn West's Librarian.net.

"It is embarrassing to see distortions of the facts coming from an otherwise often reliable source," Joshua Ferraro, LibLime CEO, told LJ. " We understand why traditional, proprietary vendors are understandably concerned that so many forward-thinking libraries are embracing open source, and more, thriving with it. Given the number of comments on websites, social networking apps, emails and calls, we think that the reaction speaks for itself.”

Equinox Software, the other open source vendor cited by name in the paper, said it had no comment.

However, Nathan A. Curulla, senior VP and director of marketing and business development for Koha and Evergreen support vendor ByWater Solutions, said he viewed the document as something of a victory.

"I’m glad we’re a blip on their radar, though I disagree with a lot of the points they mentioned,” he said. “It shows we're putting a dent in their marketshare.”

Abram: "It's about a respectful debate"
Abram told LJ he was not surprised by the reaction to the paper, but that "what’s unexpected is some of the vitriol—what we wanted was to have a better debate.”

The document was written only to provide some counterpoint to the prevailing arguments for open source, Abram said, calling it "something of a SirsiDynix position paper." He complained of a double standard, saying that anti-proprietary materials are accepted uncritically by many on the open-source side of the debate, but that similar efforts from companies selling proprietary products are frequently and vehemently derided.

"Some call [the report] FUD—fear, uncertainty and doubt," Abram wrote today in his blog post about the document. "I call it critical thinking and constructive debate—something that everyone in libraries should embrace and engage in."

Breeding: “weak starting point”
Marshall Breeding, ILS automation marketplace analyst and director for innovative technology and research at Vanderbilt University Libraries (and LJ contributor), agreed with Abram's sentiment, but felt the document itself didn't provide that opening:

There have been an enormous number of comments on Twitter resonating with points for open source and against this document, but it’s been a one-sided conversation. It’s interesting to observe what topics gain traction in Twitter. Just yesterday I posted a news story about 240 libraries in Tasmania completing an implementation of SirsiDynix Symphony and it received only one RT. Open source topics find an enormously receptive audience in this medium. Not only is this document a weak starting point for a dialog about the relative merits of open source versus proprietary software, but one must also be careful to include a broader set of voices than is represented in any single medium. Open source versus proprietary software models is one of the most important issues of the day for library automation strategies and I hope for a more balanced and nuanced articulation of the arguments as the discussion continues to unfold.

Content vs. style
Other comments online have also drawn a distinction between Abram's intent and his presentation. As Caleb Tucker-Raymond, in a comment on West's blog post, stated, "I think it’s a pretty fair look at the challenges of software development on a large scale, for the library community, or anyone really. Any middle manager at Microsoft could have written this.... Except there’s a strong undercurrent of … venom? Maybe it is just Abram’s rhetorical style, which can be grating (ie not citing sources). This is essentially a memo to people that trust Sirsi, and he can say whatever he wants, and that’s fine."

Putting off some readers, the document rhetorically implies potential problems with open source software without specific examples. For instance: "To date the ILS has not been a target for security threats, although associated systems for servers and communications have. This may change if a large installed base of open source ILS platforms emerge."

Did Lynch slam open source?
Many have also taken umbrage over Abram quoting Clifford Lynch, director of the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI), as having called the development of open source library systems among the "stupidiest strategies ever undertaken."

In response to a query from Breeding, Lynch clarified his comments, saying he may have said something like it but his views were oversimplified. He restated his current view:

I am very concerned that there are unrealistic expectations about what can be accomplished in terms of economic payoff or improvement in quality of service in the ILS world through investment in the re-implementation of traditional ILS systems; there is a mature, competitive market in such systems, and I question whether the choice to invest in developing an open source ILS makes sense given very constrained resources. The issue here is investment priorities. If we choose to do this, we need to be very clear about what we are trying to accomplish, and how the open source implementation gets us there. Also, there's a lot of confusion among the ideas of open source as a way of disseminating the results of research and allowing others to build upon the research, the idea of open source (or community source) as a means of engineering and developing a system that is conceptually fairly mature and can serve as a collective good, and the possibility and effectiveness of open or community source programs as a means of doing collective research and development.

I think there are still major problems—many of which we really don't know how to solve effectively, and which call for sustained and extensive research and development—in various areas where ILS get involved in information discovery and the support of research and teaching. While I'm not opposed to seeing an open source ILS—who could be?—and recognize that it could be very useful, particularly as a platform for research and future innovation, open source re-implementation of current ILS functionality will not be a panacea for these still-unsolved challenges.

 (When asked about the source of the quote, Abram said that Lynch offered the line in a talk at the recent American Library Association Annual Conference in Chicago.)

Competitor comments
“Could Stephen Abram have chosen a slightly more politic way of making his point? Yes,” Carl Grant, North American president of Ex Libris, told LJ. Still, Grant said that he agreed with the thrust of what Abram had to say.

Grant pointed to his own recent blog post on the topic—“Library Software Solutions - We need a higher level of discourse”—and suggested that the "FUD" reaction to concerns about open source was not constructive. Noting he has held executive positions at both open source and proprietary software vendors, Grant said “there are a lot of good things about open source, but it’s important to know exactly how open source can benefit us.”

 “We need more intelligent conversation, not a pitched battle,” he concluded. “We’ve got more important battles to fight at the moment.”

Finally, LJ also talked to Innovative Interfaces, which according to the report, “has a long history and tradition of not allowing its clients to write APIs to the underlying data and fields in the ILS."

Asked to respond, Gene Shimshock, VP of marketing for Innovative, defended the company’s business strategy:

[W]e have deliberately chosen a path of API development to supports business rules rather than offering access directly to the underlying data. This is for a few reasons. First, it allows Millennium to continue to be the most reliable and operationally sound ILS in the marketplace. Second, what we hear from our customers is that they want to solve a specific problem and don't necessarily want to worry about all the nuances involved in updating data fields and the logic involved.

Contact the author: josh.hadro@reedbusiness.com