* Thomas Dukleth (kohalist@agogme.com) wrote:
Reply inline:
On Thu, October 22, 2009 19:53, Kyle Hall wrote:
Maybe access to the source of in-house modifications should be a requirement for being a listed vendor on the site? We may not be able to alter the terms of the GPL, but we can decide the terms of koha.org ( assuming we have and will have that much control over it ). I would expect that we would have to grandfather all current vendors though.
I respond at the risk of great controversy but we have already seen what trouble grandfathered treatment has caused in the Koha community and we should be more careful in future.
[Please remember to be calm, civil, and respectful in any replies.]
There are altogether too many exclusionary rules already for being listed on the 'pay for support' page . There may even be legal hazard from any possible mishap with a litigious library for certifying competence in a world of human frailty if the Koha community might be understood to function as a trade association in some legal jurisdictions which had certified the qualifications of some members.
I presume we are now moving away from a process where one support company or a small group of support companies would exercise exclusive control over what appears on the community website.
I would prefer banning all mention of paid support services from the community website to the nonsensical treatment which has come regarding listing support service companies in the past year. I am not recommending such a ban but merely identifying what a problem the issue has been.
The very thing we should avoid is grandfathering, meaning exempting, anyone from the rules. Any rules worth having are rules which should be applied equally to all.
Hear Hear! I would much prefer we list all those who apply, with no judgement or order inferred, than the current mess. And that whatever rules there are, are applied equally to all. Chris -- Chris Cormack Catalyst IT Ltd. +64 4 803 2238 PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington 6142, New Zealand