Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed_ISO_13485

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 09:43:36AM -0700, Jim Busser wrote:

> Applications to get patient management software certified as meeting
> a quality standard seem to need a company name and address.

That is why I stipulated that such matters best be handled
by some company/entity outside the/a project proper. I do
think this (plus support) is one of the best business models
around GNUmed/such projects.

> What I wrote on the wiki in terms of  Planning, Operation and
> Control is:
> 
> Preamble: While an occasional Free / Libre and Open Source Software
> (FLOSS) project is commercially-owned, the present one is owned by
> its historical contributors under a relationship that is inconstant
> over time. Traditional business constructs including corporate
> entity, executive branches, departments, human resource managers,
> job descriptions, employer-employee relationships and reporting
> relationships are impractical and inapplicable. Moreover no
> contractual relationship exists either among the project owners or
> between the project owners and those who would use the software.

That is an excellent summary IMO.

> Practically-speaking though, it may be inescapable to need to offer
> some identifying information on the application form.
> 
> For "Company name" I was thinking to put
> 
>       (voluntary project organization) GNUmed.org

OK.

> For "Address", the web site gnumed.org *currently* lists
> 
> Sebastian Hilbert
> Zum Kleingartenpark 33d
> 04318 Leipzig
> Telefon: +49 (0) 341 234 9793
> Telefax: +49 (0) 12125 11801273
> E-Mail: address@hidden

The downside to which may be that once this goes "on record"
somewhere it might eventually lead to frivolous litigious
claims against said person.

> but alternatively the software itself resides at Savannah and is
> therefore the geographic place from which the business of managing
> and obtaining the software is being done so I *could* put the WHOIS
> which offers a Free Software Foundation address, however I should
> not do so without first talking to them about it.

I would agree talking to them to be necessary prior to
listing them. OTOH I am unsure as to what legality would
ensue from that. Would listing them as the company locality
ultimately make them the ones being the certificate holder ?!?

> Shall I ask the FSF for their suggestions as to how I would get this
> handled? I understand that they might offer some general guidance
> given they have developed an expertise in avoiding and managing
> legal problems.

They probably do have some advice.

Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346