FLOSS in New Zealand Public Libraries
by
Hamish Noonan
Submitted to the School of Information Management,
Victoria University of Wellington
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Information Studies
June 2015
Page 1 of 40
Abstract
This study attempts to gain an understanding of the uses and potential uses of FLOSS
(free/libre and open source software) in New Zealand public libraries; including how
FLOSS is currently being used by New Zealand public libraries, problems encountered
with FLOSS, benefits received from using FLOSS, and how libraries came to the
decision to use FLOSS.
It uses an instrumental case study approach and interviews eight participants from
four institutions; Te Horowhenua Trust, Auckland Libraries, Aotearoa People's
Network Kaharoa and South Taranaki LibraryPlus.
The research found that participants were very happy with their FLOSS usage, and
that it was important for governing bodies and IT departments to be supportive of
experimentation and innovation. Benefits of FLOSS included lack of vendor lock-in,
lower cost, flexibility, ability to influence the development of the software, the
philosophies and ethos of FLOSS, better features, stability, community support and
the ability to give patrons software to use outside the library.
Information sharing between libraries and engagement with FLOSS communities
were important factors in successful use. Further research could study how software
procurement decisions are made in New Zealand libraries, and whether FLOSS is
being overlooked due to preconceptions or uneven decision-making processes.
Keywords: open source software, New Zealand public libraries, Koha
Page 2 of 40
Table of Contents
Abstract.................................................................................................................................................2
Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................4
1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................5
2. Study objective................................................................................................................................6
3. Rationale and significance of the study...........................................................................................6
4. Definition of key terms....................................................................................................................6
5. Limitations of the research..............................................................................................................8
6. Literature review.............................................................................................................................8
6.1 Perceptions of FLOSS options..................................................................................................8
6.2 The ethos of the FLOSS movement and public libraries..........................................................9
6.3 How FLOSS is being used in public libraries.........................................................................10
6.4 Libraries initiating FLOSS projects........................................................................................11
6.5 Benefits and drawbacks of FLOSS.........................................................................................12
6.6 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................13
7. Research design and methodology................................................................................................13
7.1 Ethical considerations.............................................................................................................14
8. Findings.........................................................................................................................................14
8.1 List of FLOSS being used in New Zealand public libraries...................................................14
8.2 Te Horowhenua Trust..............................................................................................................17
8.2.1 Koha................................................................................................................................18
8.2.2 Kete.................................................................................................................................21
8.3 Aotearoa People's Network Kaharoa......................................................................................23
8.3.1 Public access computers..................................................................................................23
8.3.2 Kōtui................................................................................................................................25
8.4 South Taranaki LibraryPlus....................................................................................................26
8.5 Auckland Libraries makerspaces............................................................................................28
8.6 Relationship with IT departments...........................................................................................29
8.7 Engaging with the FLOSS Community..................................................................................32
8.8 Attitudinal shift.......................................................................................................................33
8.9 User interfaces........................................................................................................................33
8.10 Under-developed software ...................................................................................................33
9. Conclusions...................................................................................................................................33
Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................35
Page 3 of 40
Acknowledgements
My sincere thanks to Dr Brenda Chawner, my supervisor, who helped steer this
research with her expertise and enthusiasm.
Thanks also to the research participants, pubrarians and Yasmin Zabidin.
Page 4 of 40
1. Introduction
The world's first FLOSS (free/libre and open source software) integrated library
system, Koha, was deployed in New Zealand 16 years ago (Jaffe et al., 2007, p14).
FLOSS is software that can be downloaded for free with no licence costs. It also allows
the user to adapt, customise, study and redistribute the software. FLOSS is usually
developed in a public collaborative manner (Khode & Chandel, 2015, p30).
Some writers have noted the natural synergy between the tradition of freely sharing
information in libraries and the 'gift culture' of FLOSS projects (Chawner, 2005, p1).
Both FLOSS and public libraries depend on 'community effort' for their success
(Singh, 2014, p52), and have shared values of openness and accessibility (Jaffe &
Careaga, 2007, p1). Public libraries have an important role in breaking down the
digital divide, by providing computer access and assistance to often partly
disenfranchised members of the public. Providing FLOSS options in these formative
environments can prevent patrons being locked in to proprietary software habits when
they obtain their own computers.
Other benefits of FLOSS include portability, free upgrades, educational benefits,
greater efficiency through anti-monopolistic behaviour (Deek & McHugh, 2008, p3),
lower environmental impact (Houser, 2009, p35), and freedom from vendor lock-in
(Rafiq, 2009, p138). Drawbacks can include software maturity and a lack of technical
support options (Pruett & Choi, 2013). While FLOSS has no licensing costs, it does
cost libraries in terms of support, customisation and time spent on staff training.
Despite the natural synergies there has been a low uptake of FLOSS in New Zealand
libraries. There has been some excellent research in to the usage of FLOSS in public
libraries such as Rafiq (2009), Albee and Chen (2014), and Singh (2013), but very little
specifically in a New Zealand context.
Page 5 of 40
This report looks at how FLOSS is being used in New Zealand public libraries,
including the problems and benefits encountered. It also looks at factors influencing
the decision to use FLOSS.
2. Study objective
The objective is to gain an understanding of the uses and potential uses of FLOSS in
New Zealand public libraries. The research questions to support this objective are:
In which ways is FLOSS currently being used by New Zealand public libraries?
◦ What problems with FLOSS have they encountered?
◦ What benefits of using FLOSS have they received?
◦ How did they come to the decision to use FLOSS?
3. Rationale and significance of the study
There is anecdotal evidence of library staff being refused access to FLOSS or
dismissing it as an option for spurious reasons. This study will help public libraries in
their decision-making processes when choosing software, and will help them make
their cases to governing councils and their IT departments. It may also help librarians
re-consider concepts such as interoperability and accessibility with regard to software.
4. Definition of key terms
FLOSS (free/libre and open source software) and FOSS (free open source software)
are composite terms for software that meets the definitions of both free software and
open source software. The word libre is specifically included to emphasise the concept
is about freedom, rather than price (Skidmore, 2007, p395). In practice the definitions
for 'open source software' and 'free software' have much the same effect (Chawner,
2004, p3).
Page 6 of 40
Free software is an older term for OSS, and is an intentionally evocative term
intended to resonate with the values of freedom (Deek & McHugh, 2008, p2). The term
was coined by Richard Stallman who states it “is a matter of freedom, not price, so
think of 'free speech,' not 'free beer'”(Stallman, 2010, p83). A more complete definition
is provided by the Free Software Foundation (Free Software Foundation, 2013).
An integrated library system (ILS) is the primary functional system of a library. It
is an automated system, which usually consists of acquisitions, circulation,
cataloguing, and serials modules, and an OPAC (Online Public Access Catalogue); in
which all of the modules share a common bibliographic database (Li, 2008).
A makerspace, also known as a hackerspace, is a place where people with common
interests, often in computers, technology, science, digital or electronic art; can meet,
socialise and collaborate (Barniskis, 2014, p6).
Open source software (OSS) is software that is distributed with human readable
source code in order to allow the user freedom to modify and freely redistribute the
code (Engard, 2010, p3). A more complete and specific definition is provided by the
Open Source Initiative in the Open Source Definition (Open Source Initiative, 2014).
The term is controversial amongst free software pioneers as it is considered a rejection
of the free software movement's ethical and social values (Stallman, 2010, p83).
Proprietary software is software that has the redistribution and modification of it
restricted or prohibited (Stallman, 2010, p81). This includes software that requires
permission for redistribution or modification (Stallman, 2010, p81). It is often confused
with commercial software as most commercial software is proprietary, but FLOSS can
also be commercial (Stallman, 2010, p82).
A public library is a library open to the general public, as opposed to a specialist
library or an academic library. In New Zealand public libraries are generally run by
Page 7 of 40
local body councils. In this study the definition of “public library” is limited to
professionally-run council-funded libraries, because volunteer-run libraries tend to
have different approaches and software needs.
5. Limitations of the research
This study concentrates on four institutions that were selected because they were
already using FLOSS in significant ways. Therefore the results can not be
extrapolated to draw conclusions on the broader usage of FLOSS in New Zealand
public libraries.
6. Literature review
This preliminary literature review critiques journal articles with relevancy to the
study objective. There is very little research about the topic in New Zealand public
libraries; therefore most of the review will be about studies asking similar questions of
non-New Zealand libraries.
6.1 Perceptions of FLOSS options
Rafiq (2009) carried out an in-depth qualitative study into the perceptions of FLOSS
at libraries internationally, including 39 public libraries. It looked into the userfriendliness, functionality and quality of documentation. Rafiq found a wide range of
perceptions, but they were generally positive towards FLOSS. There were no
significant differences in opinions from public sector and private sector librarians,
except with regard to functionality. The study found that private librarians were more
likely to say that FLOSS provided lower functionality than commercial equivalents.
There were significant differences in perceptions between respondents from developed
countries and respondents from developing countries. The author doesn't discuss why
this is, but it may be because licensing costs are more prohibitive than support,
Page 8 of 40
training and maintenance in many developing countries. Unfortunately the study
didn't look into how realistic respondents' perceptions are.
Beatrice (2013) studied the use of FLOSS in a broad range of Kenyan libraries. The
Kenya National Library was studied, which is the government-funded public library in
Kenya and has branches in cities and towns across Kenya. However the study didn't
break down the results relating to the Kenya National library. As most libraries
surveyed were from educational institutions it is difficult to ascertain the use of
FLOSS in Kenyan public libraries from this study. The study found that Kenyan
librarians were strongly supportive of FLOSS options, and that FLOSS philosophies
matched that of libraries.
Dalling and Rafferty (2013) studied perceptions to FLOSS ILSs in British educational
libraries and found that librarians were reluctant to choose FLOSS options and were
unlikely to use them in the future. Albee et al. (2014) looked at public library staff's
perception to Evergreen, a FLOSS ILS. The study found the staff had very positive
perceptions towards Evergreen.
6.2 The ethos of the FLOSS movement and public libraries
Several writers talked about the similarities between the ethos of the FLOSS
movement and public libraries. Singh (2014, p52) pointed out they both depend on
'community effort' for their success and says this is why FLOSS is popular with
librarians. Jaffe et al. (2007, p1) showed they had shared values of openness and
accessibility.
Morgan (2001, p106-107) and Morgan (2000) wrote that both the FLOSS community
and librarians believe that free information will improve society, and give away
information and data without regard to fees or tangible exchanges. They both put a
premium on open access, and operate as gift cultures so they gain reputation by the
amount of intangible benefits they give away.
Page 9 of 40
6.3 How FLOSS is being used in public libraries
Rehman, Mahmood and Bhatti (2012) have completed a qualitative study into how
FLOSS is used in Pakistani libraries. The study mainly focuses on educational
libraries. Rehman et al. found that Koha, a FLOSS integrated library system (ILS), is
widely used and has been adapted by librarians and developers for local use by adding
Urdu spine label and MARC record export functionality.
Hanumappa, Dora and Navik (2014) have researched how FLOSS is being used in
Indian libraries. The study surveyed 356 librarians, with three of those working in
public libraries. The results were not broken down into types of libraries. They have
found that only around 70% of Indian libraries are using proprietary ILSs, with the
majority of the remainder using Koha or Evergreen FLOSS ILSs. They have found the
FLOSS ILSs to have features comparable to proprietary systems, and that large
Indian libraries are converting to FLOSS solutions. In their satisfaction survey they
found that Koha stood out with highly satisfied users.
Payne and Singh (2010) looked at which FLOSS libraries are using in a very general
sense. Their paper is a good introduction to the topic.
Chen and Albee (2012) was one of the few studies of patrons' direct user experience of
FLOSS, and focussed on how library patrons found using the FLOSS Evergreen ILS
online public access catalogues (OPACs).
Beatrice (2013) found that few libraries were using FLOSS but many were switching
their ILSs to Koha. Khode et al. (2015) surveyed the online OPACs of Indian libraries.
The study found that of the libraries using FLOSS OPACS, 80% were using Koha and
9% of them were public libraries.
Page 10 of 40
Lack, Ball, Kujenga, Chimuka, Mataranyika and Musemburi (2013) looked at how to
increase library usage at Zimbabwean libraries through FLOSS solutions. These
included accessibility tools for people with visual disabilities or reading difficulties. In
these cases proprietary software wasn't a viable option, so the researchers concluded
that the FLOSS solutions “changed lives”.
Dugmore, Lindop and Jacob (2014) and Cutting (2014) talked about the Auckland
Central Library makerspace, the goals of it, the issues with setting it up, and
measuring its effectiveness. They briefly mention some of the FLOSS used in it and its
importance to the makerspace.
Singh (2013) studied the experiences of librarians migrating to a FLOSS ILS. Most of
the libraries looked at were public libraries and Singh discusses who makes the
decisions and how they were made. Shafi-Ullah and Qutab (2012) provide an in-depth
case study about libraries migrating to Koha and the issues they encountered.
6.4 Libraries initiating FLOSS projects
Ransom, Cormack and Blake (2009) produced a thorough account of the Horowhenua
Library Trust's decision to commission developers to create the world's first FLOSS
ILS, Koha. It clearly outlines how decisions were made and includes some analysis of
decisions made that they later regretted. The library decided to use their own version
of Koha rather than the main-line version for several years, which meant they were
unable to upgrade. As the ability to customise software has come up several times in
the literature as a benefit of FLOSS, it will be worth looking into whether or not
customising FLOSS is a good idea, and whether or not it is a real benefit. Hadro
(2009) covered the Horowhenua Trust's campaigning against the forking of the Koha
codebase and trademark application by LibLime.
Ransom (2008) gives a similar account of the Horowhenua Library Trust's experience
with developing the Kete system. Hall and Love (2012) talk about Te Reo o Taranaki
Page 11 of 40
Trust funding some of Kete's original development work and laments how the vision of
collective resourcing of Kete's development never happened. They critique Kete's user
interface for its low-level of intuitive design and the command-driven backend. They
point out the lack of audio, privacy and security features makes it less than ideal for
Māori communities.
Hall, Murdock Ames and Brice (2013) give a similar account of developing Libki, a
FLOSS public computer access system for public libraries. This was originally created
for the Crawford County Federated Library System, a rural American library that
already had extensive use of FLOSS including Koha.
6.5 Benefits and drawbacks of FLOSS
A survey of librarians in India conducted by Hanumappa et al. (2014) found that the
most frequently identified advantage of FLOSS was the cheaper cost. Chen et al.
(2012), Payne and Singh (2010) and Singh (2013) also found the benefits were cheaper
costs. Lack et al. (2013) pointed out the ability to install software on patron's laptops
without being concerned about licensing restrictions was useful. However Dalling and
Rafferty (2013) found the perception in British higher education libraries that FLOSS
was more expensive due to higher installation costs.
Payne et al. (2010) and Rehman et al. (2012) found the ability for libraries to
customise FLOSS was a significant benefit. Beatrice (2013) found strong agreement
that FLOSS provided flexibility to customise for local needs. However many
customisations of FLOSS can result in the library becoming unable to upgrade their
software easily. Ransom et al. (2009) was the only article in this review to talk about
these issues. Albee et al. (2014) found their FLOSS ILS had greater functionality than
proprietary alternatives.
Hanumappa et al. (2014) found that the biggest barrier to FLOSS implementation was
the lack of professional support.
Page 12 of 40
6.6 Conclusions
There appears to be a consensus across the literature that FLOSS solutions are
perceived as more cost-effective than proprietary solutions. However none of the
studies go into the costings to see if FLOSS truly is a more cost-effective option.
There is very little research on public access computers in public libraries, which often
provide a great deal of FLOSS for public use. There was limited research on FLOSS
use in New Zealand public libraries, and much of the international research was
practitioner-based.
7. Research design and methodology
This research project is an instrumental case study of four institutions who are
already using FLOSS. This approach will enhance understanding of the issues and
give greater insights into the explanations underpinning the issues (Hancock &
Algozzine, 2011, p.37, 91). The following institutions are studied:
•
The Auckland Libraries makerspaces, which are running a wide range of
FLOSS within Auckland Libraries.
•
Te Horowhenua Trust, which runs Horowhenua District's libraries and initiated
the Koha and Kete projects.
•
The Aotearoa People's Network Kaharoa (APNK), which provides public
internet, computer access and other services to public libraries across New
Zealand. Although they run the Microsoft Windows system, they provide
FLOSS applications such as LibreOffice, Audacity, and GIMP.
•
South Taranaki LibraryPlus, which uses Koha and has sponsored features in it
(Cormack, 2011).
The study involved in-depth open-ended interviews with eight staff from APNK,
Auckland Libraries makerspaces, Te Horowhenua Trust, and South Taranaki
Page 13 of 40
LibraryPlus. The interviews took place in person, on the telephone, and on Voice over
IP (VOIP) software. Open-ended interviews allowed the interviewees to digress from
the questions, offer opinions, and bring up related relevant material. To avoid
confusion the interviewer used the term “open source software” rather than “FLOSS”
or “free software”, as often library staff confuse free software with proprietary
software that can be obtained free of charge (such as Google Chrome).
Data was analysed using qualitative analysis, with themes and categories that came
up in the interviews grouped together, to conclude underlying themes. A
phenomenological study was used, which involved attempting to “understand people's
perceptions, perspectives and understandings of a particular situation” (Leedy &
Ormrod, 2013, p.145).
7.1 Ethical considerations
The study was approved by the School of Information Management Human Ethics
Committee (HEC) as it involved human participants. The study guaranteed informed
consent as it could potentially have involved commercially sensitive information being
supplied in confidence. The interviewees are not mentioned by name and their
identities will remain anonymous.
8. Findings
All participants were happy with the FLOSS they were using and said they would
choose FLOSS options in the future. Some participants said they couldn't see any
drawbacks or problems with FLOSS.
8.1 List of FLOSS being used in New Zealand public libraries
The study found that the following FLOSS was being used in the four libraries
surveyed:
Page 14 of 40
•
Apache HTTP Server – the world's most widely used web server.
•
Apache Tomcat – a web server extension.
•
Arduino – software to run the open-hardware Arduino kits.
•
Audacious – a lightweight audio player.
•
Audacity – a digital audio editor application.
•
Blender – a 3D animation program.
•
Calibre – an e-book application suite that manages e-book collections and allows
you to create e-books.
•
CentOS – a Linux distribution.
•
Cheese – webcam software.
•
Chromium – the FLOSS counterpart to the Google Chrome web browser.
•
Cura – preparation software for 3D printing.
•
Ekiga – software for video-conferencing and VoIP (voice over the internet).
Ekiga is similar to Skype.
•
Firefox – a web browser.
•
FluidSynth – an audio synthesizer.
•
FontForge – font editing software.
•
FreeBSD – an operating system that works in a similar way to Linux.
•
Freemind – a mind-mapping tool.
•
GIMP – a raster graphics editor.
•
GNU Paint – a raster graphics editor.
•
Hugin – photo stitching and high-dynamic-range (HDR) merging software.
•
Hydrogen – a drum machine.
•
Inkscape – a vector graphics editor.
•
Kete – digital repository software for sharing online.
•
Kino – a non-linear digital video editor.
•
Koha – an ILS developed in New Zealand.
•
LibreOffice – an office suite based on the OpenOffice suite.
•
LilyPond – a program for engraving sheet music.
Page 15 of 40
•
LMMS (Linux multimedia studio) – includes a synthesizer, a song editor, a beat
maker, and an audio editor.
•
Mixxx – DJ-ing and beat-matching software.
•
MongoDB – a document database.
•
MusE – a MIDI/Audio sequencer.
•
MuseScore – a music score-writer.
•
MySQL – a database management system.
•
Notepad++ – a text editor and source code editor.
•
NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA) – screen reading software.
•
OpenJDK – a FLOSS version of the Java platform.
•
OpenOffice – an office suite including a word processor, a spreadsheet, a
presentation application (similar to PowerPoint), a drawing application, a
formula editor, and a database management system.
•
OpenSCAD – software for creating 3D CAD objects.
•
OpenShot – a video editor.
•
PHP – an interpreter for running scripts on a web server written in the PHP
scripting language.
•
PiTiVi – a video editor.
•
PostgreSQL – a database management system.
•
Qtractor – digital audio recording software.
•
Rapid Typing – a typing tutor.
•
Raspbian – an operating system for Raspberry Pi single-board computers.
•
Repetier Host – 3D printing software. The latest version isn't FLOSS.
•
Ruby on Rails – a web application framework.
•
Scribus – a desktop publishing application.
•
SilverStripe – a content management system originally developed in New
Zealand.
•
Squid – a caching and forwarding web proxy. It is often used to speed up a web
server.
•
Stopmotion – a stop-motion animation movie creator.
Page 16 of 40
•
Synfig – a 2D vector graphics and timeline-based animation program.
•
Ubuntu Studio – a distribution of Linux that is geared towards multimedia
production.
•
VLC media player – used for playing audio and video.
•
WinFF – a video converter.
•
Wordpress – a content management system.
•
Xara Xtreme – a vector graphics editor.
•
Xwax – a vinyl record emulator.
8.2 Te Horowhenua Trust
Te Horowhenua Trust is a charitable trust that runs a network of four community
libraries for the Horowhenua District Council. There is a central library in Levin and
branches in Foxton, Shannon, and Tokomaru. The Levin library is called Te Takere
and is promoted as a community hub and learning space. The trust's name was
changed from the Horowhenua Library Trust to Te Horowhenua Trust in 2011.
The trust initiated and continues to use two major FLOSS projects; the Koha ILS in
1999, and the Kete digital repository in 2006. As well as Koha and Kete they use
SilverStripe for their website, WordPress for their intranet, and Arduino, GIMP, and
Raspbian in their children's technology workshops.
The district council was using the proprietary software EPiServer for their intranet
but the library staff felt it had too many limitations, so they set up WordPress for the
library intranet. One participant was very positive about WordPress, and the number
of plug-ins available and said:
“You can add modules and plug-ins to do so many things – I don't know why you
wouldn't use it. We have web forms for bookings, events calendars, contact
directory – we have active directory set up. It just makes so much sense.”
The number of plug-ins available appears to be a direct result of WordPress being
released under a FLOSS licence.
Page 17 of 40
One participant found SilverStripe difficult to learn with a confusing user interface.
They said:
“The process to upgrade the core database is all command-driven server-side
languages which are totally outside of my comfort zone. I found that a huge
barrier.”
Children's technology workshops at Te Takere often have a FLOSS theme, such as
robot programming with Arduino, Graphics workshops with GIMP. They have just
bought several Rapberry Pis running Raspbian. The participants were happy with all
this software.
Te Takere are also running a studio and digital content creation suite with a fully
functioning radio station. This uses one Mac and two Windows PCs. The staff chose to
set this up with proprietary software because it is standard software for the audio
industry.
8.2.1 Koha
In 1996 the Horowhenua District Council settled all the assets of the libraries except
the buildings into the Horowhenua Library Trust. From this point onwards a culture
of experimentation and innovation developed in the library (Ransom et al., 2009, p1).
In 1999 the library needed to replace their outdated ILS partly because their
networking system wouldn't handle the Y2K bug. When they searched for a
replacement they found that replacement systems were either too expensive or only
met some of their needs. All the existing systems had expensive communication
solutions as none of them used the internet to communicate.
Therefore the trust decided to commission Katipo Communications, a Wellingtonbased web development company, to develop an ILS and release it with a FLOSS
licence. The system was built on existing FLOSS; the Debian Linux operating system,
the MySQL relational database management system, and a Perl compiler.
Page 18 of 40
Some of the reasons for releasing it with a FLOSS licence were to give the project
longevity, and because an FLOSS library system was a “public good”. The FLOSS
ethos fitting well with the library ethos was brought up at meetings when the decision
was being made (Horowhenua Library Trust, 1999). The decision was a risky one
partly because of the family relationships between Katipo and the library. One
participant said:
“Everyone said 'don't develop your own software that's stupid'. … The trust
board are made up of people from the community that care about libraries but
between them have a lot of business expertise, and they took a calculated
business risk to go down this path. … I remember talking to Rosalie Blake, the
head of the libraries at the time, and saying 'are you sure you want to go down
this way? After 30 years of an amazing professional career in libraries this is a
really high risk venture for you to go down'. Because her son was the owner of
the company and her daughter-in-law was going to work with the development.
So high risk potentially if it all went wrong. She had already had this discussion
with the trustees and the collective decision was 'if you can't trust your son to
deliver for you.' These are the familial relationships whereby if someone lets you
down they're going to have to live with that knowledge forever.”
One participant said choosing Koha over a proprietary ILS had saved the council and
the library over a million dollars over ten years.
Initially the library didn't participate in the community that built up around Koha
and customised the system without upgrading from the “main trunk” of the project.
This became a problem as initially Koha was built to handle bibliographic records in
an arrangement that later became known as FRBR (functional requirements for
bibliographic records). Each bibliographic record had a group of records attached for
each edition of the title. This allowed patrons to request either a particular edition of a
book or the first available edition. However the main trunk of Koha developed with
the more traditional and less functional MARC (machine readable cataloguing)
Page 19 of 40
system. Horowhenua used their own version of Koha until 2005 when they installed
the standard version; which by that stage had become a very different system. One
participant thought the library should have done more to convince the Koha
community of the benefits of Horowhenua's arrangement. They said:
“One of them was not staying with the main trunk of development. We had a
version that we loved and we stayed with it. Instead of upgrading to keep with
the main project, we became quite isolated. We didn't care about MARC at that
point. Still don't really. But it was really important to the global community so
they put MARC into it, and they broke our FRBR arrangement that was set up.
That was so distressing to us that we just closed our eyes and carried on, and
what we should have done was advocated more for it. We should have stuck
with that principle. We should have articulated it better. We should have
defended it more. And we didn't. So we got really out of step with the global
community. We weren't reaping any of the benefits or the returns of being part
of an open source project. We learnt from that. We're now back to that main
trunk of development and we are committed to staying there. That does mean
that you need to participate in discussions. Which is quite different – lots of
libraries don't do that.”
In 2011 LibLime managed to trademark the name Koha for their forked version of the
software. Horowhenua Library Trust received donations from around the world for
legal fees to fight the trademark decision, which was over-turned in 2013 (Grocott,
2013). One participant felt this was primarily a moral victory and said:
“They lost their trademark battle in New Zealand which was significant. The
community was delighted. In a practical sense it won't have any impact on them
at all. It was a moral victory. (LibLime) bled a lot of clients because people felt
duped. They'd been tricked into buying open source, and the LibLime version is
not.”
Page 20 of 40
Participants said that a benefit of FLOSS was that they had more of an ability to
determine future features and functionality, which they wouldn't have much say in
with a proprietary system. The trust still sponsors features for it. A participant said:
“If I want add new functionality into Koha we can just contact Catalyst in
Wellington and we'll pay them ten hours work. They can make it available for
us and for anyone else to use. So we can be very responsive and we can get
things done very quickly as well.”
There was some concern that New Zealand librarians still saw Koha as an ILS for
small library systems because it was originally developed for a small town. One
participant said:
“Perhaps we're not good enough at shouting about how it's being used around
the world. In the USA it's used by some massive consortia. New Zealand hasn't
got the best value out of it yet but the potential is there for it.”
8.2.2 Kete
Kete is a FLOSS online digital repository for heritage collections. Like Koha, it was
developed by Katipo Communications with the Horowhenua Library Trust. The name,
meaning basket, was chosen to echo the Māori proverb of the god of the forest and
birds, Tāne, reaching up to the uppermost realm to retrieve three baskets of
knowledge (Ransom, 2008, p4). The three baskets have been seen to represent current
knowledge, the knowledge currently sought, and things unknown (Taonui, 2012).
The library trust had worked closely with historical societies and were keen to support
them (Ransom, 2008, p2). The library's manager Joann Ransom said that Kete allows
the community to transform the library (For the people, 2010). After setting up Kete
Horowhenua APNK set up Kete installations for libraries around New Zealand. It has
also been used for the Orlando Memory project in Florida, USA. One participant was
pleased with Kete and said:
“Kete Horowhenua, which was incredibly popular and successful and our
community love it, and to this day it's still a hugely important tool for us.”
Page 21 of 40
However the software didn't develop the community of supporters that Koha did, so it
has become out-dated. One participant said:
“It's an example of an open source project that hasn't really had wider support
within the developer community so it doesn't get developed. As a result it's not a
modern interface.”
Another participant said the project had been forked in to a proprietary system. They
said:
“Technically RabidTech has been doing development work for Kete but they are
not releasing their work in to the public domain, and they are struggling to
create a business model where they are able to generate revenue out of the
development work they are doing.”
Another participant explained that it would be unfair to release the source code of the
updated Kete. They said:
“It never got the traction that Koha did. All of these libraries were given a free
Kete not understanding that it's like a puppy. Sure you can have it for free but
there's on-going costs to maintaining it, looking after it, caring for it, growing it,
developing it. They never ever budgeted to contribute to it. We budgeted 10-20k
a year to develop it. It's a really important tool for us. Libraries budget for
library management systems but for some reason they never actually budgeted
to contribute or support Kete. After 10 years of no development it became
incredibly dated. There was a real security risk around the baseline Ruby on
Rails foundation it was built on. I could not get other libraries to help fund the
development work. Horowhenua has 30,000 people and we're quite poor, and it
was just ridiculous that we were carrying the nation and no-one else was
contributing. I had to make a choice, whether to develop it for all or just look
after my rate-payers' assets because we couldn't get the funding. We've
upgraded our installation of Kete but no-one else's. There's been a lot of
conversations happening with DigitalNZ because the National Library has a
Page 22 of 40
legal responsibility to look after our heritage. National Library has not stepped
up to the bar at all. Horowhenua ratepayers invested $50,000 over three years
to plug a security flaw, and my ratepayers stuff is now safe. Nobody else would
help fund that work and it is completely unreasonable for Horowhenua
ratepayers to carry the nation. … We've paid to have it completely re-written in
the last year.”
8.3 Aotearoa People's Network Kaharoa
The Aotearoa People's Network Kaharoa (APNK) is partnership between the National
Library of New Zealand and public libraries in New Zealand. It provides public
internet and computer access to public libraries across New Zealand. It also hosts Kete
digital repositories for public libraries, and hosts and supports the Kōtui shared
library system.
On their back-end servers in their data centre run they run CentOS, Apache HTTP
Server, Apache Tomcat, FreeBSD, MySQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, OpenJDK, PHP,
Ruby on Rails, Squid and Kete. The participants were very happy with this software.
One participant said:
“In terms of the server stuff, it really simplifies deployment of new servers so we
don't have to worry about licensing a new CentOS server – it doesn't add to our
costs at all. It gives us the freedom to deploy with an operating system without
having to worry about those licence costs. Theoretically there are no additional
charges as far as software licensing is concerned that need to be passed on to
our customers or paid for by central government.”
8.3.1 Public access computers
On their public access PCs for library patrons they provide Firefox, Audacity,
Freemind, LibreOffice, Notepad++, NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA), Rapid Typing,
VLC media player and Calibre; along with proprietary software such as Microsoft
Page 23 of 40
Office and Internet Explorer. They all run on Microsoft Windows 7. Many patrons
learn how to use and become familiar with computers in the library so the choice of
software provided is important.
They decided to run Windows desktops instead of Linux primarily because the user
interface is a business standard. One participant said:
“We wanted to provide people with the same experience in the libraries as they
would expect to experience in the rest of their daily lives. Most people would not
experience Linux on the desktop in any aspect of their life. If you think about a
person going into work at a corporation; let's say they go to work at Vodafone or
ASB bank; they would be presented with an operating system they would have
to know how to navigate. We've tried to create that same environment for our
customers.”
One participant said their favourite FLOSS product was the screen-reading software
NVDA, for which APNK won an Extra Touch Award from the Association of Blind
Citizens of New Zealand for providing. They said:
“Without open source software some of the functionality we've been praised for
wouldn't be there.”
One participant was very pleased with GIMP and said:
“Having a fully-fledged image editor enables our customers to do something
they wouldn't be able to do if there was no open source alternative. We could
never afford 750 copies of Photoshop. So the fact that the software was free
means that it becomes available to our customers.”
They have recently switched from providing OpenOffice to LibreOffice, which they
provide alongside Microsoft Office. LibreOffice is a fork of OpenOffice that currently
has slightly more features. They both use the same document formats so can be used
interchangeably. Providing a FLOSS alternative alongside Microsoft Office gives
patrons a choice and means that when they go to buy their own computer they can
Page 24 of 40
have an office suite for free that they are familiar with. The participants were pleased
with LibreOffice's functionality and said:
“Some of the tools that LibreOffice has you can't find in Microsoft Office, like
Office Draw which is quite a good drawing tool.”
As APNK doesn't keep statistics on which software patrons are using we don't know
which office suite is the most popular.
8.3.2 Kōtui
In 2011 the Kōtui board made the controversial decision to choose the proprietary
SirsiDynix Symphony ILS over the FLOSS Koha ILS, when choosing a web-based ILS
for small libraries in New Zealand (Pewhairangi, 2011). This issue wasn't discussed in
interviews with APNK staff but some of the other participants who were using Koha
brought up this issue. There were concerns around the decision-making process, and
how FLOSS systems compete with proprietary systems in tender processes. The
participants said:
“I've been very disappointed that at a national level they didn't look at open
source when they did that consortia deal. It was a chance for people in powerful
positions to stand up and say 'hey this is a very good way of us operating that
meets the philosophy of being a librarian, about sharing and collaboration.'
They chucked a whole bunch of money at a vendor. I think that's really sad.”
“It's appalling. I find that absolutely shocking. And I think there was some
skulduggery around that. I know there were three reviews done of that decision.
The thing with open source is that you can't lie about it so when you get a
questionnaire saying 'List the features' or 'does your software contain all of
these features'; with Koha you have to be honest because anyone can download
the code and have a look at it. That's not the same with other systems. They can
say what they like. Over-promise and then under-deliver. That's what happened
with Kōtui.”
Page 25 of 40
“Any functionality that didn't exist at the time could be created very easily.
Perhaps a lack of understanding of how Koha works and how the community
works.”
8.4 South Taranaki LibraryPlus
South Taranaki LibraryPlus is a network of seven library branches in Hawera, Patea,
Waverley, Eltham, Manaia, Kaponga and Opunake. They use Koha and the APNK
service.
They've been using Koha for four years and get support from Catalyst in Wellington.
They decided on Koha because of the cost and the FLOSS philosophy.
They previously used the proprietary Liberty ILS and had difficulty with the software
and the vendor. As it was proprietary they were locked in to getting support from one
vendor. One participant said:
“With our last provider we ended up not getting along with the vendor. In the
end we walked away because we weren't sufficiently important enough for them
to do anything. …. Random stuff happened all the time. It got to the point
where they weren't interested in helping us and were sick of us complaining.
And they became utterly non-compliant and didn't return phone calls or
emails.”
The costs associated with Koha were significantly lower than comparable systems.
One participant said:
“The cost of bigger systems for smaller libraries is excruciating. If you start to
have problems with the vendor, small libraries don't have the power to make
them toe the line.”
They couldn't afford to sign up to Kōtui, a shared proprietary library system hosted by
APNK. One participant said:
Page 26 of 40
“It's a huge amount of money, and we're stuck with what everyone's got whether
it suits us or not. We would be paying 30 grand a year for the privilege of having
something that doesn't suit you.”
They found the FLOSS ethos to be in tune with the library ethos and appreciated the
lack of vendor lock-in with FLOSS options. One participant said:
“We think it's a good philosophical fit for the library around sharing and being
able to contribute back. We also didn't want to be locked into something where
potentially a vendor could be bought out and you've no longer got support.”
Both the staff and the patrons were very happy with Koha. One participant said:
“We find Koha really good. We find it easy to use. We haven't had a single day
where it doesn't work. We used to have quite a bit of downtime. So it means our
patrons have a very consistent service. … We've never had a down day. Staff
love it.”
South Taranaki LibraryPlus have sponsored a feature in Koha to retrieve the cover art
of New Zealand books from the National Library catalogue. Currently most ILS
systems only source cover art from Google and Amazon, both of which overlook most
New Zealand children's books. They felt that sponsoring features was an important
part of being part of the FLOSS community. One participant said:
“It means we can contribute back to the software as a whole. I think that's
really important because when we look at what happened to Kete over the
years, that's what went wrong. People didn't contribute back and it got
outdated, which was a real shame.”
South Taranaki LibraryPlus uses the APNK system for their public access computers.
They hadn't noticed many patrons choosing the FLOSS options such as LibreOffice.
Unlike other parts of the country their local Work and Income office gives specific
instructions for clients to use Microsoft Word when creating CVs.
Page 27 of 40
8.5 Auckland Libraries makerspaces
Auckland Libraries run three makerspaces with PCs available to the public. They are
at the Auckland Central Library, Panmure Library, and Te Matariki Clendon Library.
They are setting up new makerspaces soon at Birkenhead, Waiheke Island, Avondale,
Blockhouse Bay, and New Lynn. All the PCs use the Ubuntu Studio Linux
distribution. The Central makerspace provides two 3D printers, and the Panmure and
Clendon makerspaces have professional grade microphones. In 2014 they were
nominated for a New Zealand Open Source Award.
They use the following music software: Audacious, Audacity, FluidSynth, Hydrogen,
LilyPond, Mixxx, MusE, MuseScore, Xwax, Qtractor, and LMMS; and the following
video software: PiTiVi, Kino, Stopmotion, WinFF, and OpenShot; and the following
graphics software: Blender, FontForge, GIMP, Hugin, Inkscape, GNU Paint, Cheese,
Scribus, Synfig, and Xara Xtreme. They also use OpenSCAD, Chromium and Ekiga.
They use Cura and a FLOSS version of Repetier for their 3D printers.
Their reasons for choosing mostly FLOSS on their PCs was related to cost and
ideology. Philosophically the makerspace is keen on levelling technologies. They were
very keen for patrons to continue to use the software outside the makerspaces.
Participants said:
“This kid comes in in South Auckland and says “Audacity is awesome, I have a
computer at home, no internet, what do I do?” We can put it on a CD or a USB
for them. If libraries are about access, accessing knowledge, and also accessing
stuff; and here's a technology that is levelling. You don't have to pay for a
licence. You don't have to get a pirated version.”
“We also wanted to have the continuity to have the patron who might use some
software on our computers and then go back home and perhaps download that
software on their own computer at home.”
Initially staff were hopeful that patrons would want to play with the source code and
modify it but this hasn't happened yet.
Page 28 of 40
The 3D printing software is used heavily in the central library, while Audacity is used
heavily in the Panmure library where patrons are using it for recording music.
8.6 Relationship with IT departments
A common theme in the interviews was the relationship with the IT departments of
institutions' governing bodies, and how this affected their decision and ability to use
FLOSS.
South Taranaki LibraryPlus use the South Taranaki District Council's IT department
and say the IT department are very positive about FLOSS. One participant said:
“We've got a really good relationship with them. That's reasonably rare from
what I hear. We've got a particularly forward thinking council; we're quite
lucky. They're open to doing stuff differently. … Philosophically our council is
keen on open source software.”
Longer term the council is interested in moving towards FLOSS products and getting
away from Microsoft Office. The council was very happy with them sponsoring a
feature in Koha.
APNK uses its own IT team and doesn't have to deal with the IT departments of the
National Library of New Zealand and the Department of Internal Affairs. One
participant said this makes it much easier to use FLOSS.
Because Te Horowhenua Trust is not a department of the Horowhenua District
Council they have an unconventional relationship with the council's IT department.
When Te Takere was being set up in 2012 the library's internal IT support team was
transferred to the council IT department. The library now contracts the IT team to
provide support but they don't need to ask for approval for anything from the council
Page 29 of 40
IT team. One participant doubted that Koha would have been initiated if the
Horowhenua libraries had a more conventional relationship with their council.
Auckland Libraries uses their governing body Auckland Council's IT team,
Information Services (IS). They also have one full-time technical support co-ordinator
who works for the libraries. The makerspace doesn't deal with their council's IT
department so library staff have to fix hardware and software issues themselves. The
makerspace computers are completely separate from the council and library network.
This was decided for reasons relating to flexibility. Participants said:
“We didn't ask IS early on because we didn't think it was important for them to
be part of it.”
“It was a big question what council IS was going to do when we've got open
source computers that are off the grid.”
“We wanted something that we could just change if we wanted to. We wanted to
have people be able to download software on to our computers without the
barriers that IS put up.”
“As a body they (IS) are constrained by a particular ethos, one of which is that
they want to have a secure system.”
“That means we have to troubleshoot things ourselves and sometimes we aren't
very good at that, but Google is our friend.”
One participant felt that expecting an IT department to allow FLOSS was expecting
too much of them, as IT departments have an ethos of protecting networks rather than
being creative and opening access. They said:
“It's a completely different way of thinking. It's like asking someone to be a body
builder and a gymnast at the same time. Why would you expect someone to do
both? You would need different kinds of bodies. You would need different kinds
of thinking. … IT teams tend to be deeply conservative, extremely conservative
people. Their job is to be conservative.”
Page 30 of 40
They also saw the issue of IT departments not supporting computers with FLOSS in a
positive light as it transformed the staff. They said:
“The beauty of the makerspace for the libraries; on the one hand it's the
community stuff and helping people get access to technology, but it's also about
us. It's about transforming us and transforming how we approach technology.
Yes it will take a librarian a day to change a hard drive, but tomorrow one will
take half a day; the next a quarter of a day; and ten hard drives down we have
a service. It pushes us. It transforms us. The thing they say about giving to the
poor, that giving to the poor does more for the person giving than it does for the
poor. It transforms you.”
A common thread in the interviews was the importance of being able to try out
software on their computers. One participant said about trying out WordPress plugins, “I install it. See if it works. If it doesn't I swap it for another one.” An Auckland
Libraries participant said, “If I really want to do anything I go to the makerspace
computers and do it.” A participant from another institution said, “The idea that
people would use a public computer to do their work is just madness.” An Auckland
Libraries participant said about not being able to install FLOSS on their councilcontrolled computers:
“It constrains our ability to work and our ability to try stuff out. … I come from
an institution where I was able to download simple programs and put them on
my computer, so (not being able to) was kind of weird to me. I think we need a
workforce that is able to experiment and try out new things. If people work in a
culture where they can't experiment, then you really constrain innovation and
the ability for people to come up with new solutions. … People try once and they
get knocked back and they think 'it's not worth trying again so I won't bother. I
won't bother innovating. I'll just sit at my desk and issue books.'”
Page 31 of 40
8.7 Engaging with the FLOSS Community
A common theme participants brought up was their engagement with the wider
FLOSS community, which can determine the success or failure of FLOSS usage. Te
Horowhenua talked about the issues they had when they hadn't joined in with the
Koha community effectively.
One participant was very pleased with how librarians worked with developers at Koha
conference hackfests to brainstorm and refine ideas. They said:
“The consumer in there with the developer having a conversation face to face.
You couldn't do that with the owners of proprietary software. It's quite special.”
Participants said about the Koha community:
“It's a really close community.”
“There's a whole world out there of really clever people – libraries, vendors, and
developers, who think of amazing things and we just cherry-pick the features
that we want to turn on. It's pretty cool – you've got all these brilliant people out
there working on it. We identify a few bugs every now and then.”
Participants talking about the wider FLOSS community said:
“One of the key things for us is that the open source community help each other
out and are open to collaboration. If we have problems we can go out to the
community; there's someone online 24/7 and we've got an answer in minutes.
The time and angst you save is huge.”
“When we first installed AV Linux I couldn't get the networking to work so I
had to call a friend. The beauty of open source is that people are more willing to
work with stuff than proprietary software.”
“We've made quite a few friends just because we use Linux.”
“There are generally supportive communities behind open source software who
want to work with you to make it even better.”
Page 32 of 40
8.8 Attitudinal shift
One participant said using FLOSS had changed attitudes of librarians and changed
the way librarians thought.
8.9 User interfaces
Some participants reported that the file management system and user interface for
Ubuntu Linux was difficult to use. They said the difficulties were only because staff
and patrons were more familiar with Windows and Mac environments. One
participant said, “It's not difficult; it's just learning a new thing. Learning a new thing
takes time.”
8.10 Under-developed software
One participant had a problem when they downloaded software from the Ubuntu
Software Center without researching it or looking up reviews first. They found that
not all the software's intended functionality had been completed yet. Unlike more
restrictive software distribution platforms such as Apple's App Store and Google Play,
software submitted to the FLOSS Ubuntu Software Center isn't reviewed by humans.
The participant said:
“I went into it with a mind-set that ‘software mostly works'. Sometimes
Windows stuff crashes but the basic functionality usually works. I got half way
into a little video project and found an audio function actually didn't go at all.
This wasn't like a crash. This didn't work at all. You could slide the slider up
and down and it just did nothing so it obviously wasn't connected at all.”
9. Conclusions
Participants were generally positive about the FLOSS they were using, and were very
positive about Koha. Problems with some software showed the importance of taking
the time to research products before investing a great deal of time in them. Some of
Page 33 of 40
the issues were to do with user interfaces, but it is unknown whether this is a problem
with FLOSS in general. Another problem with FLOSS can be customising software
that is not then fed back into the main trunk of development. This can limit the ability
to upgrade the software. FLOSS systems can become under-developed and obsolete,
but there is no evidence that this more or less of a problem with proprietary software.
This study suggests that it is very important to share information about FLOSS across
libraries so that money and staff time are not wasted on expensive solutions. It was
interesting to note the Panmure Library and Te Takere were using very similar audiobased makerspaces. One was created very cheaply with FLOSS, and the other more
expensively using industry-standard equipment. However this study did not directly
compare the two makerspaces so we do not know which one was more effective for the
patrons.
Reasons for deciding to use FLOSS matched with the reported benefits of using
FLOSS. These include the lack of vendor lock-in, the cost, flexibility, ability to
influence the development of the software, the philosophies and ethos of FLOSS,
community support, and the ability to give patrons software to use outside the library.
In many cases the FLOSS systems had better features and were more stable than the
proprietary alternatives. Support for creativity and experimentation from governing
bodies and IT departments was an important factor in the usage and success of
FLOSS.
There is a lot of scope for further research in this area. Broader surveys of the use of
FLOSS in New Zealand public libraries would be interesting, including a survey of the
proportion of New Zealand libraries that use FLOSS ILSs, and how that compares to
other countries. Another area for research is to investigate how software procurement
decisions are made in libraries, and whether FLOSS is being overlooked due to
preconceptions or uneven decision-making processes.
Page 34 of 40
Bibliography
Albee, B., & Chen, H. (2014). Public library staff's perceived value and satisfaction of
an open source library system. The Electronic Library, 32(3), 390-402.
Aotearoa People's Network Kaharoa. (2014). About Us. Retrieved August 18, 2014
from http://www.aotearoapeoplesnetwork.org/content/about-us
Barniskis, S. C. (2014). Makerspaces and Teaching Artists. Teaching Artist Journal
12(1), 6-14.
Beatrice, A. A. (2013). Feasibility of adaptation of open source ILS for libraries in
Kenya: a practical evaluation. The Electronic Library, 31(5), 608-634.
Blake, R., & Hamilton-Williams, R. (2000). Koha: free library software. Library life,
247, 20-22.
Breeding, M. (2015) Library System Report 2015: Operationalizing innovation.
American Libraries, 46(5), 28-41.
Chawner, B. (2004). Free/open source software: new opportunities, new challenges.
Paper presented at the 12th VALA Biennial Conference: Breaking boundaries:
Integration & Interoperability. Available from:
www.vala.org.au/vala2004/2004pdfs/33chawn.pdf
Chawner, B. (2005). F/OSS in the Library World: An Exploration. 5-WOSSE
Proceedings of the fifth workshop on Open source software engineering, 14-17.
Retrieved from the University of California - Irvine
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~wscacchi/Papers/WOSSE-2005/Chawner.pdf
Page 35 of 40
Chen, H., & Albee, A. (2012). An open source library system and public library users:
Finding and using library collections. Library & Information Science Research, 34,
220–227.
Choi, N., & Pruett, J. A. (2015). The characteristics and motivations of library open
source software developers: An empirical study. Library & Information Science
Research, 37, 109-117.
Cormack, C. (2011). Koha 3.6.0 released. Retrieved January 23, 2015 from http://kohacommunity.org/koha-3-6-0-released/
Cutting, J. (2014). Makerspaces in libraries: A case study of the makerspace at
Auckland Libraries. Unpublished report in partial fulfilment of Open Polytechnic
Bachelor of Information Studies.
Dalling, J., & Rafferty P. (2013) Open source, open minds?: An investigation into
attitudes towards open source library management systems in UK higher education
libraries, Program: Electronic library and information systems 47(4), 399-423.
Deek, F. P., & McHugh, J. A. M. (2008). Open source: technology and policy.
Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Dugmore, P., Lindop, H. & Jacob, B. (2014). Making the makers: an exploration of a
makerspace in a city library. Paper presented at the LIANZA Conference 2014.
Retrieved January 23, 2015 from
http://www.lianza.org.nz/sites/default/files/Dugmore_P_Making_the_makers.pdf
Engard, N. C. (2010). Practical open source software for libraries. Oxford, England:
Chandos Publishing.
Page 36 of 40
Feller, J. (2005). Perspectives on free and open source software. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
For the people (2010). Library Journal, 135(5), 43.
Free Software Foundation, (2013). What is free software? The Free Software Definition.
Retrieved August 18, 2014 from https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Grocott, M. (2011). Libraries trust wins battle over trademark. Retrieved June 1, 2015
from http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9518019/Libraries-trust-wins-battleover-trademark
Hadro, J. (2009). LibLime's Enterprise Koha sets off debate. Library Journal, 134(17),
16-17
Hall, C., & Love, H. (2012) Ka Puta, Ka Ora: Digital archiving and the revitalisation of
Taranaki Reo. Archifacts, October 2011 – April 2012, 25-34.
Hall, K., Murdock Ames, C., & Brice, J. (2013). Open Source Library Software
Development in a Small Rural Library System. Code4lib Journal, (19), 1-10.
Hancock, D., & Algozzine, R. (2011). Doing case study research. New York, NY, USA:
Teachers College Press.
Hanumappa, A., Dora, M., & Navik, V. (2014). Open source software solutions in
Indian libraries. Library Hi Tech, 32(3), 409-422.
Horowhenua Library Trust. (1999). Minutes of the Horowhenua Library Trust Special
Meeting held in the Library on Thursday 14 October 1999. Retrieved May 13, 2015
from: http://kete.library.org.nz/documents/0000/0000/0208/1999_10_27.pdf
Page 37 of 40
Houser, J. (2009). Open source public workstations: open source software lowers
libraries' cost, environmental impact. American Libraries, 40(5), 35.
Jaffe, L. D., & Careaga, G. (2007). Standing Up for Open Source. Library Philosophy
and Practice, 9(2), 21.
Khode, S., & Chandel, S. (2015). Adoption of Open Source Software in India.
DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 35(1).
Lack, R., Ball, S., Kujenga, A., Chimuka, Y., Mataranyika, T., & Musemburi, D.
(2013). Increasing library usage through free open source software (FOSS) solutions:
two case studies from Zimbabwe. Journal of Library Innovation, 4(2), 42-53.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: planning and design
(International edition; 10th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education.
Li, A. (2008). Investigation of ILS in Chinese main academic libraries. Library
Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 32(3-4), 115- 120.
Morgan, E. (2000). Gift cultures, librarianship, and open source software development.
Retrieved June 23, 2015 from http://www.infomotions.com/musings/gift-cultures/
Morgan, E. (2001). The Cathedral & the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source
by an Accidental Revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA, USA: O'Reilly Media.
New Zealand Open Source Awards. (2014). Award categories. Retrieved January 23,
2015 from http://www.nzosa.org.nz/categories
Open Source Initiative. (2014). The Open Source Definition. Retrieved August 18,
2014 from http://opensource.org/osd
Page 38 of 40
Payne, A., & Singh, V. (2010). Open source software use in libraries. Library Review,
59(9), 708-717.
Pewhairangi, S. (2011). Kotui: An Update From Sue Sutherland Regarding Koha.
Retrieved June 11, 2015 from http://findingheroes.co.nz/2011/05/17/kotui-an-updatefrom-sue-sutherland-regarding-koha/
Primary Research Group (2013). The survey of library use of open source software. New
York, NY, USA : Primary Research Group.
Pruett, J., & Choi, N. (2013). A comparison between select open source and proprietary
integrated library systems, Library Hi Tech, 31(3), 435 – 454.
Rafiq, M. (2009). LIS community's perceptions towards open source software adoption
in libraries. The International Information & Library Review, 41(3), 137-145.
Ransom, J. (2008). Kete Horowhenua: the story of the District as told by its people.
Paper presented at the VALA conference, 5-7 February 2008. Retrieved May 23, 2015
from http://vala.org.au/direct-download/vala2008-proceedings/164-vala2008-session-4ransom-paper/file
Ransom, J., Cormack, C., & Blake, R. (2009). How Hard Can It Be? : Developing in
Open Source. The Code4Lib Journal, 7 (June 26, 2009). Retrieved from
http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/1638
Rehman, A. U., Mahmood, K., & Bhatti, R. (2012, July). Free and Open Source
Software movement in LIS Profession in Pakistan. Library Philosophy and Practice, 119.
Shafi-Ullah, F., & Qutab, S. (2012). From LAMP to koha: Case study of the pakistan
legislative assembly libraries. Program, 46(1), 43-55.
Page 39 of 40
Singh, V. (2013). Experiences of migrating to an open-source integrated library
system. Information Technology and Libraries, 32(1), 36-53.
Singh, V. (2014). Open Source Software Use in Libraries: Implications for Social
Justice? Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, Special Issue 2014 Social
Justice, Social Inclusion, 49-57.
Skidmore, D. (2007). FLOSS Legal and Engineering Terms and a License Taxonomy.
In Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and
Social Perspectives. (pp. 394-410). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Stallman, R. (2010). Free software, free society: selected essays of Richard Stallman.
Boston, MA : Free Software Foundation.
Taonui, R. (2012). Ranginui – the sky - Ranginui as knowledge and life. In Te Ara - the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Retrieved June 23, 2015 from:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/ranginui-the-sky/page-2
Word count: 10326
Page 40 of 40