On 2024-04-15 7:09, bill-auger wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 20:46:59 -0800 Aaron wrote:
I'm suggesting that the UI having a dropdown in a form that shows an
enormous list of free and non-free licenses *is* something to want
fixed, but that because the docs specifically describe licenses in
alignment with the criteria and because the Terms and enforcement meet
the criteria as well, the incidental nature of the not-yet-fixed
dropdown need not cause Codeberg to fail on the above criteria.
i would not overlook that so easily - ive read the codeberg TOS and it is quite
adamant about permitting only libre licenses - but if the UI will offer and
install non-free licenses automatically, then some people will opt to do so -
despite the stated policy, the effect is to allow non-free licenses; because i
seriously doubt that the admins are actively policing that
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 08:24:17 -0800 Aaron wrote:
I did open issues on this and mentioned the criterion specifically.
I vote for a pass despite this issue of the dropdown.
can you link us to that ticket? - if the maintainers consider that to be a
bug, there has been ample time to correct it now
https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1393 is one of the issues
I opened, and it is noisy with some other community members expressing
their opinions, but they do not represent the organization.
I really have every reason to think that Codeberg *does* enforce their
terms, it's not just a site that is hands-off, whatever. If any repo
there does not use the libre licensing specified in the terms and does
not fix it when the issue is brought up, the refusal to fix it *will*
lead to the repo being removed from the site.
I *do* support noting this outstanding issue within a published GNU
evaluation so that it brings attention to the concern and puts pressure
on fixing it — even if they are granted a passing grade before it is fixed.
