[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> actually, notabug may satisfy the entire 'A' class - the checklist has A2, A3, > and A9 unchecked; but we later determined that it passes A3 and A9 - i forgot > to tick those boxes afterward - this is an excerpt from my last review: We should finish determining where it stans on A2. Here's what you said: > interpreted strictly, it is unlikely that any forge other than savannah would > ever pass A2 - that is simply because forges do not literally "recommend" any > licenses - they merely offer licenses as an option for new empty repos - they > may or may not recommend that you select any license,c though a few forges > require that the license be in the sets approved by the FSF or OSI; but most > forges do not mention licenses beyond that > the notabug documentation about licensing, though very brief, is actually a > relatively strong recommendation of the GPL compared to any other forge than > savannah I'm having trouble making sense of all of this together. - that is simply because forges do not literally "recommend" any > licenses - they merely offer licenses as an option for new empty repos - Offering a specific license in a list of licenses to choose from IS a way of recommending that license. Please don't make a spurious semantic distinction between those two. they > may or may not recommend that you select any license, What does that mean -- what does "recommend that you select any license" mean to you? though a few forges > require that the license be in the sets approved by the FSF or OSI; but most > forges do not mention licenses beyond that If the site recommends all of those licenses equally, > the notabug documentation about licensing, though very brief, is actually a > relatively strong recommendation of the GPL Looking at the actual text (thanks for presenting it!), > > NotABug.org is a free-software code collaboration platform for freely licensed projects. > > We exist to help projects that distribute under any free license. > > These include, but are not limited to: > > > > The GNU Affero General Public License > > The GNU General Public License > > The Lesser GNU General Public License > > The Apache License > > The two clause BSD License > > The three clause BSD License > > The MIT License This doesn't particularly recommend any of the permitted licenses more than any other. So I'd say it does not pass A2. Do you see what I mean? Do you think I'm right in that conclusion? -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)