1. JAFER Project Creating an Open Source Z39.50 Toolkit Matthew J. Dovey Oxford University

2. JAFER Project Create an easy to use toolkit Create an easy to use toolkit Access to Z39.50 resources Access to Z39.50 resources Publish resources as Z39.50 Publish resources as Z39.50 Demo Demo Java based Java based –Becoming a popular language Open Source Open Source –Exit strategy for sustainability

3. Source Forge Created a SourceForge site Created a SourceForge site –Dissemination –Provides bug and feature tracking functionality –Provides a repository of the software after the project –Provides an infrastructure for others to develop the software after the project

5. Hurdle 1 - Licensing Academic Free License Academic Free License Apache Software License Apache Software License Apple Public Source License Apple Public Source License Artistic license Artistic license Attribution Assurance Licenses Attribution Assurance Licenses BSD license BSD license Common Public License Common Public License Eiffel Forum License Eiffel Forum License Eiffel Forum License V2.0 Eiffel Forum License V2.0 Entessa Public License Entessa Public License GNU General Public License (GPL) GNU General Public License (GPL) GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) Lucent Public License (Plan9) Lucent Public License (Plan9) IBM Public License IBM Public License Intel Open Source License Intel Open Source License Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer Jabber Open Source License Jabber Open Source License MIT license MIT license MITRE Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (CVW License) MITRE Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (CVW License) Motosoto License Motosoto License Mozilla Public License 1.0 (MPL) Mozilla Public License 1.0 (MPL) Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL) Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL) Naumen Public License Naumen Public License Nethack General Public License Nethack General Public License Nokia Open Source License Nokia Open Source License OCLC Research Public License 2.0 OCLC Research Public License 2.0 Open Group Test Suite License Open Group Test Suite License Open Software License Open Software License Python license (CNRI Python License) Python license (CNRI Python License) Python Software Foundation License Python Software Foundation License Qt Public License (QPL) Qt Public License (QPL) RealNetworks Public Source License V1.0 RealNetworks Public Source License V1.0 Reciprocal Public License Reciprocal Public License Ricoh Source Code Public License Ricoh Source Code Public License Sleepycat License Sleepycat License Sun Industry Standards Source License (SISSL) Sun Industry Standards Source License (SISSL) Sun Public License Sun Public License Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0 Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0 University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License Vovida Software LicNaumen Public License Vovida Software LicNaumen Public License Nethack General Public License Nethack General Public License Nokia Open Source License Nokia Open Source License OCLC Research Public License 2.0 OCLC Research Public License 2.0 Open Group Test Suite License Open Group Test Suite License Open Software License Open Software License Python license (CNRI Python License) Python license (CNRI Python License) Python Software Foundation License Python Software Foundation License Qt Public License (QPL) Qt Public License (QPL) RealNetworks Public Source License V1.0 RealNetworks Public Source License V1.0 Reciprocal Public License Reciprocal Public License Ricoh Source Code Public License Ricoh Source Code Public License Sleepycat License Sleepycat License Sun Industry Standards Source License (SISSL) Sun Industry Standards Source License (SISSL) Sun Public License Sun Public License Sybase Open Watcom Public License v. 1.0 Sybase Open Watcom Public License v. 1.0 University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License Vovida Software License v. 1.0 Vovida Software License v. 1.0 W3C License W3C License wxWindows Library License wxWindows Library License X.Net License X.Net License Zope Public License Zope Public License zlib/libpng license zlib/libpng license

6. Licensing – 2 OSI list of approved licenses is long. OSI list of approved licenses is long. Some are specific to companies (e.g. Sun), Universities, Organizations (e.g. Apache), projects (e.g Mozilla) or platforms. Some are specific to companies (e.g. Sun), Universities, Organizations (e.g. Apache), projects (e.g Mozilla) or platforms. We asked JISC what they recommended (or whether there was a JISC specific one) We asked JISC what they recommended (or whether there was a JISC specific one) –They asked us to let us know what we chose!

7. Licensing - 3 Most licenses followed similar form Most licenses followed similar form –Required that notice of authorship be retained in any derivative works –Limited responsibility of software failure GPU/LGPU Seemed most popular GPU/LGPU Seemed most popular –GPU: derivatives must also be OpenSource –LGPU: derivatives may not necessarily be OpenSource Chose LGPU Chose LGPU –Toolkit project –Wanted to encourage use

8. Issues: Code Publishing Published code at recognised milestones Published code at recognised milestones –Very aware of code quality –Tended to delay publishing code until we had tidied the code Frequent refactoring Frequent refactoring –New versions of published code could differ widely –[Not alone – problem of building UDDI/Z39.50 gateway when both toolkits changed rapidly] Problem of balancing dedicated programmers with building a community of programmers Problem of balancing dedicated programmers with building a community of programmers –[Not alone – many open source projects have closed development – at least during initial phases]

9. Sustainability after the project Building a community Building a community –Have a number of users of the toolkit –Some have submitted code and bugfixes (informally) Following coat-tails Following coat-tails –Developed tools for uPortal, Cocoon, DSpace, etc. Uncharted waters Uncharted waters

10. Open Source versus Open Standards

11. Open Source and Open Standards Project said it needed Open Source since this meant: Project said it needed Open Source since this meant: –Reliable –Affordable –Open –Widely Used –Supported by different vendors and development tools (avoid lock in) Solution: OpenSource? Solution: OpenSource? Or OpenStandards? Or OpenStandards?

12. Issues Reliable Reliable –Sometime available source excuse for lack of support (you can fix it yourself) –Good software should be reliable (regardless of OpenSource or not) Affordable Affordable –OpenSource may be free but may have high cost of maintenance –Swings and roundabouts –But vendors should be reminded to be competitive! Open Open –OpenSource does not imply Open Code/Open Standards Widely Used Widely Used –Some OpenSource projects never get off the ground. Others fade into obscurity. –Some of the most successful have commercial businesses behind them (either spin-offs or existing industry) Supported by different vendors and development tools (avoid lock in) Supported by different vendors and development tools (avoid lock in) –OpenSource does not imply Open Code/Open Standards/Common Standards –OpenSource sometimes adopted by industry as cynical attempt to thwart competition

13. Example 1 – OpenSource Portal

14. Portal Framework - Problems Portal Java API – non Standard Portal Java API – non Standard –Reason: Java API not finalised when portal under development WebService API – non Standard WebService API – non Standard –Reason: WSRP not finalised when portal under development In defense, Portal developers committed to adopting Java and WebService portal standards when the standards are finalized In defense, Portal developers committed to adopting Java and WebService portal standards when the standards are finalized

15. Portal - Consequences Channel development in Open Source portal framework difficult/expensive to port to other portal frameworks Channel development in Open Source portal framework difficult/expensive to port to other portal frameworks –Requires substantive redevelopment Lock in applies to Open Source implementations as to commercial/blackbox Lock in applies to Open Source implementations as to commercial/blackbox One solution – use Web Proxy channels to dedicated web applications One solution – use Web Proxy channels to dedicated web applications –Solution to lock in – independent of Open Source

16. Example 2 – OpenSource VLE JSP Tag Library Persistent JavaBeans OpenStandards: J2EE All Interfaces Proprietary

17. OpenSource VLE Similar reasons Similar reasons –J2EE standards not available at original development time Similar consequences Similar consequences –Resources developed with the VLE difficult to port – requires redevelopment Rebuilding the VLE to accommodate Open Standards will be expensive Rebuilding the VLE to accommodate Open Standards will be expensive

18. What is a Standard De facto standards De facto standards –MS Word Published de facto standards Published de facto standards –RTF (just) –PDF –OpenOffice Commercially owned standards Commercially owned standards –J2EE –.Net Standard body approved standards Standard body approved standards

19. Standards Bodies ISO ISO –Very slow to standardise, very slow to see implementations NISO NISO –Not quite as slow as ISO –Emphasis is library related standards W3C W3C –Fairly rapid –Recommendations – not standards OASIS OASIS –Acts as a regulator for merging de facto standards into an Open standard –Needs reference implementations (some are often Open Source)

20. IPR, Patents etc. IPR Patents becoming a big issue for Open Standards and Open Source IPR Patents becoming a big issue for Open Standards and Open Source –EU developments to allow patents of software –Silly Software patents (Microsoft on validation using relational tables; Oracle on Web Service Registries) W3C OASIS etc. have IPR policies W3C OASIS etc. have IPR policies –RAND – Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Terms –RF – Royalty-Free Ironically more supportive of Open Standards than Open Source Ironically more supportive of Open Standards than Open Source