I was reading a story last week about the Linux Foundation‘s third annual report [PDF] of the Linux kernel, and in it was a section that talked about the affiliation of the programmers that contributed to the development of the kernel. This got me thinking about the affiliation of programmers in the library open source community. More on that after a brief detour to explain what the “kernel” is.

For those that don’t know the inner pieces of how computers are put together, the “kernel” is that part of the operating system that governs everything else. It gets to say what programs are run and shuts them down when they misbehave. It arbitrates access to devices like the keyboard and the disk drive. It is the first thing that runs when the computer starts up and the last thing to quit when the computer shuts down. It is the heart of the device you see in front of you. There are some parallels that could be drawn to integrated library systems. So this is a thought exercise down one of those parallels.

Much of the Linux kernel report is about the rate of change to the Linux kernel source code (faster pace, broader base of contributers). But there is also a section that talks about financial sponsorship of the work. Beginning on page 12, I’ve excepted a few bits under the heading “Who is Sponsoring the Work”

The Linux kernel is a resource which is used by a large variety of companies. Many of those companies never participate in the development of the kernel; they are content with the software as it is and do not feel the need to help drive its development in any particular direction. …

There are a number of developers for whom we were unable to determine a corporate affiliation; those are grouped under “unknown” in the table below. … The category “None,” instead, represents developers who are known to be doing this work on their own, with no financial contribution happening from any company.

The top 10 contributors, including the groups “unknown” and “none” make up nearly 70% of the total contributions to the kernel. It is worth noting that, even if one assumes that all of the “unknown” contributors were working on their own time, over 70% of all kernel development is demonstrably done by developers who are being paid for their work. … The picture since [kernel version] 2.6.30 [in 2009] shows some interesting changes:

Company Name	Number of Changes	Percent of Total
None	9,911	19.1%
Red Hat	6,219	12.0%
Intel	4,037	7.8%
Novell	2,625	5.0%
IBM	2,491	4.8%
unknown	2,456	4.7%
consultants	1,265	2.4%
Nokia	1,173	2.3%
Renesas Technology	1,032	2.0%

If an Open Source ILS was Linux…

The second largest contributor would be a company that bases its existence on the open source product. Red Hat is known as the most successful commercial distributor of the Linux kernel, and its version of the kernel is used and trusted by a variety of commercial players. In the integrated library system community, an equivalent company would be someone like Equinox or ByWater Solutions. This might be as you would expect.

From there the list gets interesting quickly. Intel is primarily known as a hardware manufacturer, but it ranks third in the list of contributors to the kernel. It is hard to come up with an equivalent in the library community, but we might think of someone who is tangentially related to integrated library systems — say, Gale or ProQuest. (Until recently, I might have put OCLC in this group. With its introduction of Web-scale Management Services, though, it probably falls into the next category.)

Then it gets really interesting. Novell and IBM both have their own lines of operating systems and supplemental software, but they are also very large contributors of open source code to the Linux kernel. It would be as if Innovative Interfaces and SirsiDynix, in addition to creating their own products, also contributed substantially to an open source integrated library system.

Okay, like I said, making this comparison is a stretch. But it does lead me to think what it is about the culture of Linux community and the business opportunity of an open source kernel that makes this happen. Is it one benevolent dictator at the top (a.k.a. Linus Torvalds) looking out for the best interests of all involved? Is it a diversity of needs (such as servers to desktops to set-top boxes to phones in the case of Linux) under a big umbrella that makes sure everyone find enough value to contribute to the whole? Is it a form of job advertisements seeking to hire the best of 19.1% doing development on their own time? Or is it some sense of comradeship that transcends organizational bounds?

I don’t have answers, but it does seem like a useful case study to examine as we think about how open source software is created and sustained in the library arena.

This is an announcement posted by the State Library of Ohio regarding the selection of FulfILLment from Equinox for a statewide resource sharing system.

OPEN SOURCE STATEWIDE RESOURCE SHARING SYSTEM PROPOSAL FROM EQUINOX HAS BEEN ACCEPTED.

The State Library of Ohio is pleased to announce Equinox Software Inc. has been selected to develop a new open source resource sharing solution called Equinox FulfILLment. The goal of the project is to develop a seamless resource sharing application under an open source licensing framework in an environment of disparate integrated library systems (ILSs).

An Open Source Statewide Resource Sharing Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued on December 15, 2008. The RFP process and acceptance of the Equinox proposal are the result of a collaborative effort, initiated by the State Library of Ohio, of multiple State Libraries and regional library network providers. This resource sharing system will first be deployed in Ohio, but will also be deployed individually by the members of the Collaborative.

“This is a very exciting and promising collaborative effort,” said State Librarian of Ohio Jo Budler. “We have a common vision of how resource sharing should work and how this would benefit the residents of each of our states. But this is the first time that I recall so many state libraries and statewide networks have been successful in combining resources toward such a shared vision and goal.”

Members of the Collaborative include:

• State Library of Ohio
• OHIONET (fiscal agent)
• WiLS – Wisconsin Library Service
• State Library of Iowa
• State Library of Illinois
• State Library of Indiana
• State Library of Missouri
• State Library of South Carolina

Information about the RFP process can be found at http://www.library.ohio.gov/swrs/rfp and future updates of the Equinox FulfILLment development process will be posted to our Statewide Resource Sharing homepage at http://www.library.ohio.gov/swrs.

The text was modified to update a link from http://www.library.ohio.gov/swrs/rfp to http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090320000000/http://www.library.ohio.gov/swrs/rfp/ on February 11th, 2011.