Subject: Re: FSBs and mechanized documentation
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:56:19 +0900

>>>>> "Rich" == Rich Morin <> writes:

    Rich> At 1:30 PM +0900 3/6/06, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

>>>>>> "Rich" == Rich Morin <> writes:

>     Rich>   *  The raw information is available for inspection.
>     Rich>      Open Source development tools (e.g., Bugzilla, CVS)
>     Rich> have accessible code and data, so tools can easily extract
>     Rich> relationship information, etc.  Also, the information is
>     Rich> free of proprietary restrictions.

> This is generally not true of bug databases.

    Rich> I'm not sure of the referent for "this", above, so I'll make
    Rich> a general response.  Bugzilla is Open Source, as is MySQL
    Rich> (which it uses).

The software may be free, but by that very token the information is
not.  All the definitions of "free" I know of say that you may not
make any restrictions on how the software is used, although both the
FDL and GPLv3 do so.

As far as I know both Red Hat and SuSE have "private" areas in their
bug databases, although that may restrict only "anonymous" users.

Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering   University of Tsukuba        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory