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

>>>>> "Rich" == Rich Morin <rdm@cfcl.com> writes:

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

>>>>>> "Rich" == Rich Morin <rdm@cfcl.com> 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
http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory