Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] What's needed to publish the evaluations (aka the longest email ever {aka two specific tasks})}

[Aaron Wolf]

On 04/12/2016 09:36 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 21:27:34 -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> I find the Sourceforge report problematic. I haven't verified this
>> myself, but I believe that the vast majority of Sourceforge JavaScript
>> is free, if not all, and comes directly as part of Apache Allura.
> 
> But it's not LibreJS-compatible, which is the criterion.
> 

If LibreJS-compatible is *the* criterion, then GitLab fails. Period. If
the criterion is verifiably free (via LibreJS or another reliable
verification), then GitLab passes and Sourceforge fails. But in that
case, the report should be clearer and state that the JavaScript that
does these things in Sourceforge has not been verified as being free
(yet it might actually be free, it's just unverified).

There's two valid options:

(A) specify the criteria as verifiably-free and state that Sourceforge
JS isn't verifiable

or

(B) specify the criteria as LibreJS-verified specifically and fail GitLab

I would suggest option (A) and to reach out to Sourceforge asking for
their assistance in verifying the freeness of their JS.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature