James Forrester:
Actually, "we" have had a very long-term rule that we don't use non-OSS software as a part of the Wikimedia "stack".
Actually, if such a rule exists, it was and still is frequently broken. The response I got when I asked about this was not "we don't use closed source software", but "we use open source software where possible".
Furthermore, it does not apply to the Toolserver; I specifically confirmed this with WM-DE when we started. Nonetheless, let's assume that it does.
If we have a tool which requires Toolserver access to work, and also uses non-open-source code which prevents it from being open source itself, there are two options: we can allow the tool to run while not being open source, or we can deny access and the tool will not exist.
If we choose the first option, we gain a useful tool, and have lost nothing.
If we choose the second option, we gain "ideological compliance", but lose a useful tool.
If you think the second option is better, I don't really know how to respond. This is the sort of open-source pyrrhic victory that the GNU people are so fond of. If your mission is to promote open source software and destroy proprietary software, perhaps it makes sense. That is not our mission.
If people want a shell account to run "cool" tools that happen to do Wikimedia-related things, there's no particular need for them to have TS access. There are lots of free or cheap shell providers out there.
Actually, a lot of tools *do* need Toolserver access. That's why it exists. (If something could be equally easily hosted somewhere else, we consider this a point against granting a new account.)
TS access is a privilege, and we should expect those who have the advantages of this privilege to work within the same rules that we expect from other members of the community.
I see conflict between this statement and the Toolserver allowing non-open-source tools where necessary.
- river.