Re: Feedback on our evaluation criteria
[[[ 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. ]]] > other than savannah, they all have that issue - none have adequate > licensing documentation - the reason why github is singled-out on > that one flaw is just historical - github was the first on the > list beside savannah - that statement could be made generically; > but myself, i would remove it - It makes sense to treat all the sites with that problem alike. But there are various manners of treatment that we could apply to them all. This point is important, and we should make that clear to the reader. -- 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)
Re: Feedback on our evaluation criteria
[[[ 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. ]]] > > 1. Clarify that the criteria apply only to source code hosting websites; > >some projects may want to use non-website source code hosting. > the criteria can apply to any hosting service operated by any software project > or any third-party - whether or not those are websites is irrelevant - the > criteria are not judging the service software - they are judging the site > operators' treatment of their users - eg: which unethical practices do they (via > software or otherwise) encourage hosted projects to follow, or impose upon > people (anyone) who try to read or get source code from that host Do we need to change https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html to make that point clear? > that wording is plainly because GNU can dictate what is > "acceptable" only for itself - GNU has no authority over non-GNU > projects; so it would be pretentious to define what others should > or should not accept - independent projects must decide for > themselves what is acceptable; because only they have the > authority to accept or reject these principles in the context of > each their own projects That is true but I am not sure it is pertinent. To state criteria for judging repos does not imply that we try to dictate to everyone what they can do. -- 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)
