Re: CodeBerg addition
Sorry for the lack of specificity. By "inherited software", I meant this: - Codeberg is running an instance of Forgejo - Forgejo is a soft fork of Gitea - Gitea has a new-repo form that includes a license field which shows all the licenses from a giant list of licenses, free and non-free, common and obscure, old and new. Codeberg's new-repo form still shows that giant list. However, Codeberg does not actually *allow* non-free licensing, so anyone choosing non-free from that list is in violation of Codeberg's terms. The reason for this situation is obviously not because Codeberg chose to show the list but because nobody fixed it yet. I have opened issues at multiple levels in this stack to suggest that the situation be fixed. I am now of the opinion that this is incidental enough and that we should consider giving it a PASS due to both the Terms and the docs at https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/ Also, just in the days since I started reviewing, they already updated the code so that the docs link will be highlighted right at the spot in the form where the big list of licenses shows up. So, even the new-repo form will be saying what licenses are suggested and required even though the dropdown list is still the giant list for now. On 2024-01-02 8:11, Richard Stallman wrote: [[[ 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. ]]] Thanks very much for working on this evaluation. >https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse.md#2-allowed-content-usage > *requires* free software licensing (with a very few reasonable > exceptions). However, the inherited software interface has some issues. It looks like that is the blocking issue, but what does it mean? What is the "inherited software interface"? Those words can be parsed in multiple ways. What is inherited from what? When we are ready to post the evaluation, it could be useful for one of us (you?) to show them the draft we will post. They might decide to fix B2 right away so that they will get a B.
Re: CodeBerg addition
[[[ 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. ]]] Thanks very much for working on this evaluation. > https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse.md#2-allowed-content-usage > *requires* free software licensing (with a very few reasonable > exceptions). However, the inherited software interface has some issues. It looks like that is the blocking issue, but what does it mean? What is the "inherited software interface"? Those words can be parsed in multiple ways. What is inherited from what? When we are ready to post the evaluation, it could be useful for one of us (you?) to show them the draft we will post. They might decide to fix B2 right away so that they will get a B. -- 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)
B2
[[[ 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. ]]] > Note: this criterion B2 could be fleshed out to list more bad practices > such as adding non-free clauses to licenses and using outdated versions > of licenses (though I would not prefer to see sites fail this criterion > just because they decide to include GPL-2-or-later for compatibility > with existing GPL-2 projects). I agree about added non-free clauses, and about GPL-2-or-later. (And about BSD-3-No-Military.) What should we do about GPL-2-only? We want to discourage people from choosing GPL-2-only as the license for a new package. But suppose someone wants to put a fork of Linux or Git in a repo? That is not a matter of "choosing" a license, it is a matter of stating the license that someone else chose. It would be bad for a site to refuse to host forks of GPL-2-only packages. A site could require that people ask permission to make a repo with GPL-2-only as the license. -- 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)
