Open Collections

UBC Library and Archives

Exploring Open Source: a Solution for Records Management? Rogers, Corinne 2010

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


Rogers_Corinne_et_al_Exploring_Open_Source.wmv [ 116MB ]
Rogers_Corinne_et_al_Exploring_Open_Source.pdf [ 2.31MB ]
JSON: 1.0077832.json
JSON-LD: 1.0077832+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0077832.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0077832+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0077832+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0077832+rdf-ntriples.txt

Full Text

 Exploring Open Source: a Solution for Records Management?  An InterPARES 3 General Study  Corinne Rogers, InterPARES Graduate Research Assistant, Evelyn McLellan, Researcher and Elizabeth Shaffer, Graduate Research Assistant Open Access Week, UBC October 19, 2010 Outline • InterPARES Project – background & context • IP3 – General Study 08 • What, why & how of Open Source Software – Definitions, Landscape and Licensing • Who is using OSS? • OSS in Libraries and Archives – a success • OSS for Records Management – is this also a success?  InterPARES Project • International Research on Permanent Authentic Records in Electronic Systems (InterPARES) • Developing knowledge essential to the long-term preservation of authentic records created and/or maintained in digital form • Providing the basis for standards, policies, strategies and plans of action to ensure longevity and trust in records’ authenticity InterPARES Project • IP1: preservation of authentic records created and/or maintained in databases and document management systems • IP2: reliability, accuracy, authenticity throughout records’ lifecycle, emphasis on complex digital environments • IP3: puts theory into practice InterPARES 3 & General Study 08: • GS08: identify and discuss open source software options for records management (EDRMS) • Literature review – features, problems,  concerns • Map functionality of existing OSS RM to InterPARES Creator and Preserver Guidelines and RM standards (MoReq 2, ISAD(G) and ISO 15489)   OSS – Assumptions & Concerns • Free, but no vendor backup or installation support • Poor security because code is freely available • Inconsistent support dependent on peer user groups • Hidden costs: implementation, support, interoperability • Issues with intellectual property rights • Perpetuated by Microsoft’s video criticizing Open Office ( )    Proprietary – Assumptions & Concerns • Source code is unavailable, hidden behind binaries (object code) – preserves developer control • Development is secretive, slow, cumbersome • High cost to use the software, costs to support and upgrade • Promotes dependency on one provider – “the addiction model of software procurement”*   *   Comparison: Proprietary v. OSS Proprietary model • Users do not have access to source code • Restrictive licenses • Costs associated with startup, support, leaving • Software purchase implies vendor lock-in Open source model • Users have access to source code, can modify, reuse, redistribute • Permissive licenses • Different model of costing • No vendor lock-in “A technology revolution driven by market demand”* * Evolution… • “Imagine if all past knowledge was kept hidden or its use was restricted to only those who are willing to pay for it. Education and research would suffer. Publishing books or sharing information of any sort would become difficult. Yet this is the mentality behind the proprietary software model. In the same way shared knowledge propels the whole of society forward, open technology development can drive innovation for an entire industry.”             Revolution…  “Just as the Copernican revolution was part of a broader social revolution that turned society away from hierarchy and received knowledge, and instead sparked a spirit of inquiry and knowledge sharing, open source is part of a communications revolution designed to maximize the free sharing of ideas expressed in code.” (O’Reilly, 2008) From the Industrial Model … Expert Knowledge Product Consumers Consumers Financial Capital Consumers Consumers …to Connected Intelligence Rules Expert Knowledge Products Transformation of Culture How do we classify knowledge? Centralization Service Assymetry Decentralization Commodification Interdisciplinarity Open Source Software: a model for the new paradigm? - Distributed peer network - Transparency of process - Code can be used, modified and redistributed - Code is licensed to make it available to the public Source code Licensing Community Open Source Initiative • Stewards of the open source definition • Review and approval of licenses as OSD- compliant • Community-building • Education • Public advocacy Open Source Definition 1. Free Redistribution 2. Source Code 3. Derived Works 4. Integrity of Author’s Source Code 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor 7. Distribution of license 8. Licenses not specific to a product 9. Licenses do not restrict other software 10. Licenses are technology-neutral Source code Availability Licensing Open Source Licensing • All licenses must be in compliance with the OS definition • Licenses are approved through a review process • Purposes are consistency & transparency Types of licenses • Permissive - permit software to become proprietary (MIT, new BSD) • Weakly protective (weak copyleft) - prevent the software component from becoming proprietary but permit it to be part of a larger proprietary system (LGPL, Mozilla Public License 1.1) • Strongly protective (strong copyleft) - prevents the software from becoming proprietary (FLOSS - GPL) Types of licenses Licensing: Copyright v. Copyleft Open source licenses exist along a continuum: Open - Proprietary    Open in Proprietary Always Open  Public domain     Weak copyleft           Strong copyleft   Copyright: Protects the individual creator from unrestricted distribution of his/her work CopyLeft: protects the right to freely distribute a work without restrictions Controlled access v. Free access Intellectual Property & Open Source • Copyright • Patent • Trade Secrets • “Viral” nature • 3rd party infringement • Validity of OS licenses Open Source Activity Map* France: Overall – 1 Government – 1 Industry – 25 Community - 3 United States: Overall – 9 Government – 28 Industry – 13 Community - 2 Canada: Overall – 28 Government – 34 Industry – 17 Community - 16 *Open Source Index 2008, Red Hat, Inc. OS in Libraries & Archives What do Harvard, University of Florida, Stanford, Cornell, MIT, UC Berkeley and San Diego, the National Archives of the UK, Australia, the Netherlands and the Portuguese National Archives all have in common? Open digital repositories Practical solutions in digital preservation Practical solutions in digital preservation Practical solutions in digital preservation Open source records management? • Is there a similar movement in the world of records management? – What products are available? – Do they adhere to existing RM standards? – How are they supported? – What is the uptake? • If there are few products available, why?  Context of records management • Active records not cultural assets to be shared • Traditional business model • Institution-based rather than collaborative • Operating in relative isolation • Security and privacy paramount • EDRMS must integrate with other software • EDRMS development is lucrative • Institutional IT departments often want backing of well-established and familiar vendors  Requirements for RM applications • US Department of Defense DoD 5015.2-STD • MoReq2 • National Archives of Australia, UK, NZ • ICA Guidelines • ISO 15489 & 23081  Capture       Identify       Classify       Manage Retain       Dispose      Search       Retrieve       Render  Open source records management? • Many content and document management systems, but not records management • Only Alfresco offers a DoD-certified RM solution  “Alfresco reduces your ECM costs by up to 96% compared to proprietary systems like Documentum, Open Text and SharePoint. It’s as simple to use as a shared drive or SharePoint and does not lock you in to a proprietary stack.” Alfresco • Community version vs Enterprise version • Provides its software under several different licenses depending on the user • GPL - free to use • OSI-approved - free to use w/FLOSS exception • Flexible OEM commercial license • Commercial license - subscription service Alfresco Records Management References • O’Reilly, Tim (2008) “Open Sources 2.0/Beyond Open Source: Collaboration and Community/ The Open Source Paradigm Shift” Beyond_Open_Source:_Collaboration_and_Community/The_Open_Source_Paradigm_Shift. • Thomas, John R. (2004) “Intellectual Property, Computer Software and the Open Source Movement.” Congressional Research Service. March 11, 2004. Available at • Tiemann, Michael (2009) “How Open Source Software Can Save the ICT Industry One Trillion Dollars per Year,” November 1, 2009.  Websites: • • • • • • • • • • • •    References • The Open Source Definition (Annotated) - official definition of “open source software”, with some explanations. • Free Software Definition - official definition of “Free software” (aka libre software; note the unusual capitalization). • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about the GPL - Explains many issues relating to the GPL, and includes a detailed compatibility matrix for various versions of the GPL and LGPL (including some details about how they can be combined). • Various Licenses and Comments About Them - Legal commentary by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) about many licenses. • “Commercial” is not the opposite of Free-Libre / Open Source Software (FLOSS)” - Explains why most FLOSS is commercial software. • Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers! - Large collection of statistics on FLOSS programs. • Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else - Explains why FLOSS should be released under a GPL-compatible license, and includes many statistics showing that the GPL is the most popular FLOSS license. • Maintaining Permissive-Licensed Files in a GPL-Licensed Project: Guidelines for Developers by the Software Freedom Law Center. collaboration.html  This list available at Last Thoughts  Questions?  Thank you 


Citation Scheme:


Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Canada 8 0
United States 7 0
City Views Downloads
Vancouver 6 0
Unknown 3 0
Ashburn 2 0
Burnaby 2 0
Sunnyvale 1 0
San Francisco 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}


Share to:


Related Items