An important question related to the adoption of an open source ILS is whether it results in lower or higher cost to the library. The proponents of open source make claims that their approach results in substantial savings to a library over time. Companies involved with proprietary software dispute those claims. There may be no simple answer to that question. It's up to any library deliberating between open source and proprietary solutions to perform its own analysis of which approach is most cost-effective given the library's circumstances and expectations. Considering just the cost issues, setting aside philosophical preferences, quality, and functionality of software, it's important to work out the total cost of ownership for the solution for as many years as the library plans to use the software. Given that a typical library will operate an ILS for 10 to 15 years (provided that the company stays in business and the product remains viable), the total cost of ownership should be calculated over at least a 5- to 7-year period.

Table 3 describes some of the major categories of cost involved in the implementation and operation of an integrated library system, highlighting some of the factors that differentiate open source and proprietary systems.

A common argument in favor of open source software is that it gives users more support options and less vulnerability to business transitions. In the proprietary software arena, if a company goes out of business or is acquired by a competitor, then the ongoing viability of that product can be jeopardized. Without the development and support of the original vendor, the product will stagnate, and the libraries that use it may have to migrate to another product. In the case of a business acquisition, the new owners of the software may or may not choose to continue development and support of the products involved. It also may not be possible for another company to step in to take over development and support. If the company that originally developed the software does not provide good service or decides not to continue developing or supporting it, the libraries using that software cannot go somewhere else. With propeitary software, a product remains closely connected with the company that owns and controls it.

In the open source realm, the connection between a software product and a given company is more flexible, at least in theory. Although a company may spearhead the development of a product, once the product is released as open source, a more diffuse body of programmers can become involved. If the company goes out of business, any other interested company, individual, or organization can step in and provide development and support. At any time, multiple companies can provide support for the same product. If a company fails to provide good support, the users of the software can engage another.

We see different examples of multi-vendor support in the open source ILS arena. Koha was originally developed by a company in New Zealand, Katipo Communications. In the United States and Canada, LibLime markets and provides services for Koha. In France, a company called BibLibre provides Koha-related services. Other companies are emerging in other geographic regions. To date, there are no major examples of multiple companies competing within the same region for the support of an open source ILS.

In practice, each of the companies involved in open source ILS focuses its attention on a single product and generally has fairly exclusive involvement relative to that product. It remains possible that we will see additional competition for support for open source ILS products as this sector of the market expands and matures.

In some ways, the business dynamics of open source vendors is similar to that of proprietary vendors. The geographic distribution of companies offering support for Koha is not unlike the arrangement seen with many vendors of proprietary software, who partner with other companies to market and sell their products in specific countries or regions.

Where regional distributors for a proprietary ILS are arranged through contracts that that assign a company specific rights regarding a product—-like marketing and support within a defined area—the proliferation of companies supporting an open source product occurs more informally. If a company intends to become involved in providing services for a given open source product, it does not need to obtain permission to do so.

We have seen some examples where support for a product has shifted from one company to another as the result of business transitions. In February 2007, LibLime made an agreement with Katipo Communications to assume the portion of its business related to Koha, including the support arrangements for the libraries in that region. In July 2008, CARE Affiliates was acquired by LibLime. The contracts made by CARE Affiliates, primarily involving federated search implementations using open source components from Index Data, were assumed by LibLime.

So far, there are no major examples of libraries using an open source ILS and demonstrating vendor independence by moving from one company to another for support. There have been libraries using open source products whose support arrangement was transferred from one company to another as a result of a business transaction. These transfers of support happen regularly in the proprietary ILS arena.

An important part of this issue involves the support and development options that exist with open source software that are not possible with proprietary software. A library can use an open source ILS without direct involvement from any commercial company, and if it wants to contract for support, the library is not forced to work with any specific vendor.

Contracting for services and support for an open source ILS is optional. Many libraries have implemented Koha independently, both within the United States and internationally, including the Delhi Public Library in India, the Nelson Memorial Public Library in Samoa, the Bering Strait and Chinook school districts in Alaska, a group of schools associated with the Southwest Educational Development Center in Utah, the Washington County School District in Utah, and many others.

If the library needs additional assistance beyond what is available within its existing staff, it has many options. It could simply hire its own programmer, or it could contract with a commercial company. Although each of the products has ties to a specific company that specializes in its development and support, a library can hire or contract with anyone it chooses for any services that it might require.

With a proprietary ILS, the company that owns the product controls its development. In most cases, development is performed by direct employees of the company. There have been some examples where an ILS company has engaged services from a third-party offshore firm for development, but this has been fairly rare. In general terms, development of a proprietary software product is a closed process.

Open source software allows and even encourages wide participation in ongoing development. Since anyone can gain access to the source code, other programmers can inspect the code, fix bugs, or extend its functionality.

In the current open source sector of the ILS industry, there are companies specializing in services for a given ILS that employ programmers to actively develop their product. Of course, not all development takes place in these companies. Programmers who work for libraries, for other companies, or out of their own interest also contribute to the development of open source ILS products. The open source movement encourages voluntary development efforts, where organizations contribute the equity of their efforts to improve software initially for their own benefit, but ultimately for all users of the software.

In the open source ILS arena, the majority of the development of products is performed by their principal support company. One of the key strategies that leads to the improvement of the software involves “sponsored development.” As a general principle, each new feature that gets added to the product needs to be paid for only once.

The model of sponsored development has driven the advancement of the open source ILS products. The basic premise holds that open source software components can be paid for only once for the benefit of many. Each library that subsequently adopts the software benefits from the accumulation of features that were sponsored previously. Early adopters bear a larger portion of the costs and assume higher risks, but to the advantage of those that implement the software in a more finished and complete form.