we need to be sure that we can use this for time to come. no entity can guarantee that they will be around and supporting their software for any length of time (not for free anyways) who is to guarantee that the owners of the product don't suddenly turn around and want to charge money for it?
Sigh. I don't want to get into a open vs. closed source argument here. In this specific case, the makers of Fisheye will grant a free, perpetual license for open-source projects.
therefore the only assurance that remains is access to the source (and the right to change it.) the risks with not doing so are simply unacceptable for a project like this. (yes, this includes the use of roxen platform on the pike site, but there i believe/hope is a special contract between ida and roxen)
you're making statements based on a particular ideological viewpoint, and that's fine, but with the exception of access to the source code, the license is not really any different than a free software license. and really, I think it's a bit dramatic to say that the risks are unacceptable. it took me a total of 15 minutes to install and configure the software. If for some reason in the future i was prevented from using the software, i'd only be out 15 minutes. It doesn't mean my [or the pike repository's] data will be trapped.
I mean, does it really make sense to be spending time reinventing the wheel, just so that it's written in pike?
but at this point CodeLibrarian is already written. so it is a bit late for that argument.
but it doesn't support svn, nor a number of other features that products on the evaluation list do include, so that argument is still perfectly valid.
and yes, it does make sense to reinvent the wheel if the new wheel is easier to maintain or the old wheel is not free software.
It hasn't been established that one "wheel" or another is anything, and that's my point. They're running those boxes with plenty of other non-free software, so arguing against using software that isn't free- as-in-speech to solve a particular niche problem just doesn't hold water for me.
Fisheye certainly has worthwhile features that I think merit more than the very curt dismissal you've given it.
i can only support the dismissal. i can't even find the license terms without registering. i find such behaviour deceptive and not worth my time.
I realize that you're on a strict free-software only diet, but I think in this case, you're being alarmist. I'm trying to be pragmatic here; there's a piece of software that I suggest will make everyone's life easier (and I truly believe that). It's not free-as-in-speech, though, and I think it's silly-beyond-words to not at least look at it.
BTW, the license is here (nothing special, it's a standard closed- source license):
http://www.cenqua.com/fisheye/license.html
greetings, martin.