Quoting Tim Gorman <tim@xxxxxxxxx>: > I'm sure that Oracle Legal goes ape on a regular basis on having *any* > bug text exposed on MetaLink. They don't give a darn about the > advantages to customers trying to diagnose problems -- they are > concerned only with the liabilities involved and the resulting potential > financial exposure, and that exposure is considerable. Think about it. I've thought about it and I still can't see the problem. It all depends on what is written on the bug text or how the whole thing is organised so others can check if there is a bug in a specific area. Confidentiality of bugs is not an argument to sustain inability to access that information. I couln't care less for example who the customer is: that info could be blocked from public eyes, while the rest of the text or a summary at least is available. Plenty of ways to work around that problem. Oracle's unwillingness in finding a solution to let folks check bugs cannot be explained just by confidentiality issues. > be in violation of federal law on that. It's bad enough I just said > that on an open forum, and it is purely hypothetical and speculative, > but what if it is true? I'd love to see the first lawsuit on this break the Oracle usage agreement: that's what it's there for. > > Think about that, and just be grateful that *any* of the bug texts are > exposed. Personally, I work each day with the expectation that they > will disappear altogether. Yeah, but bugs won't disappear, no matter how much we might wish them gone. Much better to tackle the problem in a fashion that avoids everyone else hiting the same bug. That is an exposure as well, this time directly to Oracle: if I spring a bug that Oracle knew about and didn't let me know after I asked, I've got every right to hit back at Oracle for lost time... -- Cheers Nuno Souto -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l