Paul Rubin schrieb: > "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> You fail to recognize that Python is *already* using a non-free software >> for bug tracking, as do thousands of other projects. > > I don't think that reflects an explicit decision. SF started out as > free software and the software became nonfree after people were > already using it.
That, in principle, could happen to any other free software as well. What is critical here is that SF *hosted* the installation. If we would use a tracker that is free software, yet hosted it elsewhere, the same thing could happen: the hoster could make modifications to it which are non-free. Not even the GPL could protect from this case: the hoster would be required to publish source only if he publishes binaries, but he wouldn't publish any binaries, so he wouldn't need to release the source changes, either. Also, even if it the software is open source and unmodified, there still wouldn't be a guarantee that you can get the data out of it if you want to. You *only* get the advantages of free software if you also run it yourself. Unfortunately, there is a significant cost associated with running the software yourself. Despite what other people say, this *is* an issue. On python.org, things that should get done don't, just because there is no volunteer doing them. Hosting such a service elsewhere has the clear advantage that you don't have to worry about most routine maintenance jobs. Regards, Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list