OSS Watch Scoping Study: Summary

1. Executive Summary

The recent popularity of Free/Libre/Open Source Software has created new opportunities and challenges for IT users in UK Higher and Further Education. OSS Watch (http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/) is a pilot advisory service on open source software funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) to provide a clearinghouse for information, and a forum for discussion and debate in order to aid UK HE and FE institutions in the process of thinking through IT decisions with regard to open source software (OSS).

This report offers recommendations to help guide the development of this new advisory service over the next 18 months. Although ‘free’ software has a long and storied history in the UK, very little hard data exists on its deployment in UK higher education (HE) and further education (FE) institutions. The recommendations in this report are based on two web-based surveys and a number of site visits, which provide new insights into OSS use in this sector. The report also reports on FLOSS use more generally in the UK, and reviews recent UK government and European Commission policies regarding OSS.

2. Summary of Recommendations

• [2.1]: An ongoing comprehensive search for additional public domain data on the state of OSS should be carried out. This might take the form of either internal OSS Watch research or commissioned research.
• [2.2]: UK government policy developments should be tracked and summarised, including information on meeting dates and links to primary documents.
• [2.3]: Given the apparent lack of coordination in interfacing with government, a focal point is needed for the communication of academic stakeholders' concerns to policymakers.
• [2.4]: Stakeholders should have easy access to new EC directives, policy developments in member states, and in states outside the Union. These might be compiled in a regular newsletter that summarises recent policy changes and is tailored to the needs of UK HE and FE institutions.
• [3.1]: OSS Watch might consider building its own database of relevant contacts at HE and FE institutions.
• [3.2]: OSS Watch should consider conducting focus groups in which stakeholders can discuss their concerns for OSS in a structured way. This may be a more cost efficient substitute (or complement) to a comprehensive survey, particularly if the focus groups are carefully selected to be a representative sample.
• [3.3]: Training workshops targeted at FE institutions that would like to consider the deployment of OSS software, but have very few staff skilled in the use of OSS, should be carried out.
• [3.4]: OSS Watch might consider means of making stakeholders more familiar with the OSS development process so that they can utilize support and resources offered by the OSS community.
• [3.5]: Given that the majority of respondents have an IT strategy, but do not mention OSS in that strategy, stakeholders could helpfully be offered case studies of institutional strategies which do explicitly consider OSS and strategy templates based on these experiences.
• [3.6]: Subject-area departments may have very different concerns from central IT departments, and more information should be sought about the different IT policies and needs within institutions.
• [3.7]: Given the relatively low levels of OSS awareness among FE respondents, information and education programmes should be offered for these stakeholders.
• [3.8]: Given that awareness of packages ‘off the beaten path’ is relatively low for both HE and FE institutions, information should be provided on lesser-known or more specialised OSS packages relevant to stakeholder needs.
• [3.9]: A study comparing the TCO for OSS and proprietary solutions in UK HE and FE institutions should be carried out. Even a study done on a relatively small scale would significantly contribute to the small body of knowledge on this issue.
• [3.10]: A generic assessment of the long-, medium- and short-term risks of OSS implementation for particular applications in terms of each major concern cited should be provided to stakeholders.
• [3.11]: Given the prominence of interoperability as a reason for choosing OSS and as a main concern, information should be provided to FEs and HEs on the relative merits of OSS in terms of interoperability. Case studies from institutions that have chosen OSS for this reason could provide an additional source of information.
• [3.12]: Given the concerns with migration, particularly on desktop systems, best practices in this area should be investigated and a realistic assessment of migration costs should be offered to stakeholders.
• [3.13]: Given the prevalent concern with the identification, categorisation and availability of software, the community might consider an online index of academic software titles for HE and FE institutions. Such an index could also address concerns for particular applications, e.g. third party support, take-up elsewhere, etc.
• [3.14]: Informational resources could be provided to help management of HE and FE institutions contextualise the flood of media reports on the various controversies surrounding OSS, with a view towards supporting clear-headed and rational decisions about the risks of deploying OSS.
• [3.15]: Given recent concerns over the commercialization of intellectual property generated in the education sector, and in light of the government's recent consideration of a default licensing policy for R&D software, it is important that institutions at least consider an institutional licensing policy. Institutions should be encouraged to examine the available options, and provide information and guidance on the possible routes, with particular attention given to the implications of OSS licensing for commercial exploitation.
• [3.16]: JISC might consider making available a set of ‘best practices’ for licensing software developed in-house. This could include boilerplate copyrights and licenses.
• [3.17]: Cases of universities successfully commercializing source code protected under OSS licenses should be investigated and made available to developers and university enterprise offices.
• [3.18]: More generally, JISC might consider making contact with university enterprise offices that are struggling to make sense of OSS and determine what services might be useful to them.
• [3.19]: Although sole use of the web and e-mail is probably not an optimal means of soliciting feedback from HE and FE stakeholders, respondents' habit of receiving info on OSS via the web and e-mail suggests that this is an effective means of distributing information. Building a database of relevant contacts (see above) will aid information distribution.