Python to use a non open source bug tracker?

[Paul Rubin]

"Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> writes:
> 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.

True, though GPL 3 tries to address that.  Most important is to figure
out the underlying attitude of the host.  I realize it's the same
crufty software (or worse) as SF and therefore maybe not so attractive
on those grounds already, but did you think about migrating to
Savannah?

> 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.

Well, if the cash is available, there's always the possibility of
using free software and paying someone to host it.  Anyway, I wouldn't
have expected running a tracker to be that significant a task compared
with the rest of the web site, the mailing lists, the Subversion
server, the codebase itself, etc. etc.  But Paul Boddie explained some
of the issues pretty well.

> 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.

I have to wonder too why Jira is so sure to be more reliable than SF.