It seems unreasonable to automatically install a process that writes to a logging table without bounds without even mentioning in the documentation that the user needs to set up a process for managing it. Even if you don't have a feature to automatically create some type of default maintenance for that table, you should at least document the need for it in the User Guide. (I apologize if that is there and I missed it.)
In my opinion, the process that writes to that table should delete old records and not make the user manually set up their own maintenance plan to deal with that. Microsoft has a default maximum number of rows for the job history (and a separate setting for maximum number of rows per job). Maybe you could just use those settings (the actual current values, not just assume the Microsoft defaults) for maintaining the LiteSpeed JobStatus table without requiring any configuration.
Thanks,
Mark