Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Hello experts!

[Hein-Pieter van Braam]

Thank you for your reply. 

I'd like some help with some of the questions posed in [2] if at all
possible. LibreJS support has not been high on my TODO list thus far as
all the sourcecode to the javascript is available on nab itself under
the the same expat license as the rest of gogs, in non-minified form. I
suppose I should be adding headers to the minified versions. :)

On the other notes:

C1: The optional Flash copy url applet has been tested with the free
software flash replacement 'shumway' and worked fine, this is why I
kept it on the site, otherwise it would have been removed. The applet
itself is also free software.

C2, C4: I think this is the bit I need the most help with. There's a
bug open on nab about needing a ToS, but at the time I felt that having
a bad ToS (as in, legally questionable) would be worse than not having
one at all. I don't know how to write one, or where I can obtain a ToS
document that I can use under a free license and apply to NAB. My goals
for a ToS are basically just 'anything goes, except things that are
illegal to host in europe.' I'd like some wording about not wanting to
host content that endorses sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia etc.
Again, I have no idea how to word this in a sensible manner. 

I think if I can get help with a TOS, and implement the LibreJS headers
NAB should be able to receive a B grade. Currently making A0 work is
not really practical due to the way the gogs codebase works. But the
other requirements are either met, or can be met without any issue. I
do not mind recommending GPLv3+ more prominently than I do, I believe
all other requirements are already met.

Is anyone willing to help me with at least the ToS wording? I will look
into adding LibreJS header generation to the gogs buildsystem.

- HP



On Wed, 2016-05-11 at 19:52 +0000, Juuso Lapinlampi wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 09:14:11PM +0200, Hein-Pieter van Braam
> wrote:
> > 
> > Currently NAB is not listed on the evaluation page, but perhaps it
> > could/should be? Since the whole point of NAB is/was to provide
> > developers with a free platform I'm very much interested in doing
> > well
> > on such an evaluation.
> There is an ongoing discussion if any and every Git repository
> service
> someone is willing to review should be listed.[1] I am personally as
> a
> by-stander reader with one evaluation thinking notability should
> matter.
> 
> I use NotABug too, but I don't think it's really notable if you apply
> Wikipedia's notability guidelines on it. Versus GitLab, for instance.
> 
> Last month Andrew Ferguson evaluated NAB and it received an F
> grade.[2]
> I set a proposal to list at least those that reach the B or A
> criteria
> or better.[3]
> 
> [1]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2016-05
> /msg00006.html
> [2]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2016-04
> /msg00057.html
> [3]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2016-05
> /msg00007.html