Rod Roark wrote: > > > The point is, open source (as in Free Software) is NOT a business > model. It's a method and end result of collaboration among users. > I make good money at it only because some of those users are willing > to pay me to do the techie work for them. if someone is paying you something, then there is a business model. It's better to be aware of what it is than pretend that it isn't there.... > > I repeat: NOBODY will pay thousands for certification of Free > Software. They will use it because they already believe in it. If the accreditation process and procedures are transparent and do indeed show that anyone claiming to have an XYZ-compliant product really does have such, then it is in the interests of the users. Put yourself in the shoes of a purchaser (especially a health authority or government). Let's say you are interested in DICOM software. Let's say there are two products on the market that do what you want, but only one is certified. You find out about the certification process, you discover that the test cases are published as are the procedures for doing the certification. You know that the certified product correctly processes say 50 published test files, and does 65 other things described in the process. Finally, let's say that the prices are within 30% of each other. Which one do you buy?
- thomas beale Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/