Hi Mike,
One thing: the current evaluation of GitHub has "They push people toward GPLv2, undermining GPLv3 adoption" as a note. From what John was saying earlier, hasn't this changed (and if so, should this be changed in the evaluation - or would that require the whole of GitHub to be re-evaluated again?).
Andrew
GNU ethical repository criteria evaluations
We maintain this evaluation report presenting the compliance level
of popular sites to the GNU
ethical repository criteria. There are some criteria that we
can’t possibly verify, in which case we accept the site maintainer’s
word on the matter. This evaluation is done
by volunteers
and you are welcome to contribute.
Savannah has already acheived the highest grade for ethical hosting. These are the issues that would need to be addressed for it to earn extra credit:
- There are normal Web access/download logs
which sometimes include IP addresses.
(A+1)
- It follows EFF’s criteria only partially.
Complying with the rest remains in progress.
(A+2)
- HTML_CodeSniffer reports dozen of errors
and warnings related to WCAG 2.0 compliance on every page.
(A+3)
- There is no WAI-ARIA markup in its pages.
(A+4)
- Currently there is no way of exporting
data contributed by project owners or contributors.
(A+5)
Things that prevent it from moving up to the next
grade, B:
- All _javascript_ code served to the client is free, but
not LibreJS-compatible. (B0)
- Gitlab does not encourage adding a project
license. Further, it does not recognize all existing license files
(e.g. COPYING). (B2)
Things that prevent it from moving up to the next
grade, C:
-
The following important site functionality doesn’t work without
running nonfree or non-LibreJS compliant _javascript_:
(C0)
- Change repository name;
- Change repository description;
- Delete repository;
- Add an SSH key;
- Pull request;
- Enable and disable project features;
Qualified passes for the next
grade C:
- Although it doesn't deliberately discriminate any
country, specific information may not be available in all countries
by legal reasons. See
roskomnadzor
and export
controls for more details. (C2)
- GitHub
and choosealicense.com goes
as far as possible against GPL within the bounds of
plausible deniability. In other words, they do the absolute bare
minimum to just arguably pass this criteria. This is the rationale
supporting this conclusion: (C5)
- They relegate GPL to the third option;
- They make the wording to emphasize that Expat/MIT should be
the standard default;
- They assert that the license to use for
patent concerns is Apache v2 (and they fail to mention
that GPLv3 deals with patents as well);
- They carefully word the explanation of GPL to avoid
reference to passing on freedoms and only make it about
contributing code back (which is not actually the
correct interpretation of GPL);
- They push people toward GPLv2, undermining GPLv3
adoption;
- They describe GPLv3 as not an improved license but
characterize it to sound like it just has some meaningless
jargon most people won’t get or care about;
Things that prevent it from moving up to the next grade,
C:
-
The following important site functionality doesn’t work without
running nonfree or non-LibreJS compliant _javascript_:
(C0)
- Create first project; (stumbles in phone
verification)
- Upload files, create a folder or use interactive file
manager;
- Enable, disable or delete reviews;
- Reply to, link to, edit, delete, mark as spam or add
attachments to discussion posts;
- Create, delete, revert, add attachments to, or
unsubscribe from wiki pages;
- Access wiki, code, ticket, discussion and blog
administration menu;
- Access RW, RO and HTTP checkout commands;
- Browse commits;
- Merge code by merge requests;
- Subscribe/unsubscribe to code commit notifications;
- Add attachments to tickets;
- Bulk edit and move of tickets;
- Column sort and selection in ticket browser;
- Add, delete and edit ticket milestones and
searches;
- Moderate or label discussions;
- Administrate forums;
- View statistics graph;
- Set project status;
- Upload a project icon;
- Install tools;
- Set user permissions;
-
Its term
of use states: (C2)
Users residing in countries on the United States
Office of Foreign Assets Control sanction list, including Cuba,
Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria, may not post Content to, or
access Content available through,
SourceForge.net.
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 11:38:06 -0500, Zak Rogoff wrote:# Task 1: Get the evaluations ready to publish
The latest draft of the evaluations that I've received is up at
<https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/repo-criteria/eval-page-feb-4-2016.html>
for us to review. Please don't link to it publicly yet.
Attached is the modified draft. See details below.The task includes:
* Double-check that the evaluations are still are up to date and send
an email confirming this to the list. If they are not up-to-date, make
sure someone updates them.
Do we have a definitive up-to-date reference? I don't think there havebeen any updates since Bruno last modified this draft (aside fromGitlab). * Add a note to the evaluations page and the evaluations matrix (the
table that summarizes the scores) saying which version of the criteria
was used to evaluated them (we should keep the date of evaluation that's
already there).
Done. * Confirm with Sytse and Mike Gerwitz that the Gitlab evaluation is
ready to be published (if you two are reading this, feel free to just
respond right here!). If so, add that evaluation to the draft.
Done previously; added to draft.-- Mike GerwitzFree Software Hacker | GNU Maintainer & Volunteerhttps://mikegerwitz.comFSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB
|