On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Rhialto wrote:
> On Mon 10 Apr 2006 at 11:32:51 -0400, David Maxwell wrote:
> > Keep in mind also that TNF signed an NDA in order to get access. While
> > not stated in the NDA, my understanding is that Coverity wishes to protect
> > some aspects of the technology from their competitors, and wide-open
> > public access to the reports could conflict with that goal.
> 
> On the other hand, this closedness seems to be somewhat in conflict with
> the openness of open source.

I couldn't disagree more.

Are you suggesting that companies shouldn't contribute to open source
projects because they'll then come under fire for not "giving away"
the way they make their business work?

NetBSD, and all its users are benefitting from the improvements to the code
base that come as a result of this voluntary contribution on Coverity's part.

NetBSD is the open source project, our code is open.

Coverity is a for-profit business. That they choose to give us _anything_,
is charity on their part.

> Also, the apparent involvement of the
> department for so-called "homeland security" [1] brings a certain taint
> along.

While some people may dislike some of what that (US) Government
department does, would you claim that makes it impossible for them to
fund any thing which is worthwhile and beneficial?

-- 
David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> 
"Maxwell's Maxim: Sturgeon's Law fails where one person has a bullwhip
and isn't afraid to use it"                     - Martin Loeffler