| 1 |
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> FSF announced GNU ethical criteria for code repositories: |
| 4 |
> https://www.fsf.org/news/gnu-ethical-repo-criteria |
| 5 |
> https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> We should take it into consideration as well. I really doubt that |
| 8 |
> GitHub will be able to pass even C class check :) Such check are |
| 9 |
> under way right now. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I'm pretty sure our own infra wouldn't pass the C check, since we |
| 12 |
don't recommend GPL3+ specifically but do recommend other licenses |
| 13 |
(such as GPL2+). Gentoo itself is not endorsed as a free distribution |
| 14 |
on their site, because it packages non-free software (even if nothing |
| 15 |
non-free is installed by default or required) - and the same is true |
| 16 |
of Debian and just about any other linux distro you've heard of. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Indeed, if github happens to not endorse any specific license at all |
| 19 |
it is possible that it would rate higher than we do on the Gnu scale. |
| 20 |
:) I think the only question is whether they have any non-free |
| 21 |
Javascript which is required for the site to function. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
For the most part I like their criteria, but their social contract is |
| 24 |
not quite the same as our own. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
That said, I'm interested in their findings all the same - hopefully |
| 27 |
they'll be specific about any concerns they raise. I suspect |
| 28 |
Javascript would be the main issue if there is one (I'm just referring |
| 29 |
to their grade of C - I doubt it would score higher). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Rich |
Archives