Re: Savannah vs. Gitlab

[Matt Rice]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Svetlana A. Tkachenko
<svetlana@members.fsf.org> wrote:
>> Gitlab is OPEN SOURCE. :)  It is not proprietary.
>
> 1) It does not label its frontend's JavaScript with the licenses (C0.0).
> 2) Gitlab links to about.gitlab.com which sells a proprietary product.
> The free GitLab version is bait-and-switch for their so-called
> enterprise version which is proprietary software.
> 3) GitLab does not encourage submissions which are freely licensed (C5).

about 1, this blog post discusses the freeing of the javascript (even
from the non-free version of the software) amongst other things...

https://about.gitlab.com/2015/05/20/gitlab-gitorious-free-software/

but it strikes me that you aren't actually saying that the javascript
isn't of an acceptable license, but that it is not labeled as being of
an acceptable license?

I find the argument odd given that some javascript does not bother
emitting whitespace, let alone comments, thus the free javascript
might not even be the preferred source form, what I gathered they made
the coffee script which generates the javascript free software as
well...  gcc does not preserve licensing terms either in the binaries
it produces.  At least if we want it to produce javascript containing
licensing terms we should be able to modify it to do so.

not sure what your (C?) references are supposed to refer to?
anyhow the quote from RMS on the above link sums up my opinion on the matter...