[1021] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Circulation policies for microcomputer software
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jean Vik)
Thu Aug 20 09:02:18 1992
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 07:57:59 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
From: Jean Vik <YZCD%UTDALLAS.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
This is a summary of the responses I received from my query for circulation
policies for microcomputer software. Seventeen of the eighteen libraries
who replied said they do circulate software although some of them said all they
had was software that came as part of a book purchase. Eight of the responses
were from university libraries. Six were connected with the U.S. Army TRADOC
Library and Information Network which includes academic, technical, and public
libraries. One was a special library and the other three were public libraries.
One of the university libraries said it has a policy not to purchase software
for use by patrons. Two of the university libraries said they are trying to
avoid buying software but circulate the disks that come with books purchased.
The policies for circulation were varied:
* Several had the software in reserve (2 & 3 hour). They were to be
used in the microcomputer lab in the library building, but there was
no way to check if they were taken from the building.
* One library circulated them the same as books based on their patron
policy.
* One library circulated them according to the policy of the location
where they were housed.
* One had created a special location called Booksoft for books with
software which circulated for 30 days.
* One library circulated them with limitations: only software which
can be run from the floppy and only a copy protected disk.
* One library treats its software like AV material.
Almost all of the libraries who circulated their software kept the original
as a protected archive copy and circulated the backup. One library mentioned
their monograph processing unit made the backup, placed all the labels on it
and housed the original. Three have their automation department make the
backup and one had their media department handle it. Another mentioned their
location which housed the software provided backups and scanned for viruses
if they had the equipment to do so.
Only one library scanned each disk for viruses when it was returned. Another
placed a warning label on each disk regarding the possibility of viruses and
added that the "University libraries are not responsible for any damage done
because of a virus."
All the libraries placed a warning about copyright on the package. Federal
Register, Tuesday, Feb. 26, 1991, p. 7811-2 contains requirements for labeling
computer programs which are going to circulate.
One public library reported a high incidence of theft at a branch which keeps
its software in open stacks. Several mentioned that adding software to a
collection is very labor intensive because of the backups, extra labels
needed, and checking for viruses. They also pointed out how expensive it can
be to maintain since someone needs to monitor licenses, register the software
and watch for new releases.
