support requirement

[pvolcko at concentric.net]

I think it would help emensely.  

Someone already stated that if current ISO rules don't allow organizations
that produce their own programs to maintain them and remain ISO certified,
then the ISO rules need a bit of changing I would think.  Requiring
external support/maintanance is what I would consider a useless
requirement.

Assuming that the rules will not change and that Vendor X will not simply
remove the clause for "picking up support" for those who already support
reasonably similar products (what is that supposed to really mean anyway,
who says what programs are similar?), then we can examine what Vendor X
should do to fix this without involving their license:

1) Sell the software outright to another company who will support the
program through open sourcing under the license that has been made thus
far without the "pick up support" clause.  Assuming that is all thats
stopping it from being OSD compliant.

2) Partner with another company that will provide the support to them (and
others?) and, preferrably, is willing to participate in open source
development of the product.

3) Open source it and hope that another entity picks it up and supports it
in some way.  

But I agree with whats been said already, this is something that should
stay out of the license agreement and be dealt with through business
contract or lobbying for ISO compliance rules changes.

Paul Volcko


On 30 Aug 1999 bruce at perens.com wrote:

> From: <pvolcko at concentric.net>
> > What defines "supported" as far as ISO 9000 is concerned?  There's no way
> > for vendor X to "self support" their own product and remain ISO 9000
> > compliant?
> 
> I'd guess it would be best to have an ISO 900X support shop. I'm not aware
> if LinuxCare or anyone else is going for certification.
> 
> If someone who understands the ISO 900X standards could write an article on
> fitting Open Source within your ISO shop, it might help. 
> 
> 	Thanks
> 
> 	Bruce
>