On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:45:21 -0700 Aaron wrote: > On 2024-04-15 7:09, bill-auger wrote: > > 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.
as i remember, a few years ago during the initial round of evaluations, there were some codeberg maintainers participating on this list - it would be good to get some feedback from them, at least stating that they are aware of the issue and are willing to address it - without that, i would keep it as failing On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:45:21 -0700 Aaron wrote: > I really have every reason to think that Codeberg *does* enforce their > terms i expect that they would also, IFF the offending repo is brought to their attention; but how does that happen? - i doubt that the admins are reviewing every repo as savannah does - i suppose that relies on some other user reporting the offending repo to the admins the point i am arguing about mainly, is that the interface seems to be leading people to choose non-free licenses; and if it installs a license file automatically, it is actively helping them to do so - regardless that the site policy, people generally do not read those; but every user will be presented with those license options - in terms of the FSDG, that would constitute a failure On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:45:21 -0700 Aaron wrote: > 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. the only place to note that though, is the checklist - and the only way to indicate it, is to mark the criteria as failing
