SourceHut Ethical Repository Evaluation

[Jack Pearson]

Hello,

I'm requesting a B rating for SourceHut (https://sr.ht). 

Some background on me: I'm doing a spring internship at the FSF.

The evaluation is based on my own review, input from Ian Kelling (who
works at the FSF), and Drew DeVault's evaluation and subsequent
discussion on this mailing list in Jan 2020 (
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2020-01/msg00011.html
). Drew is the main developer and administrator of SourceHut.


# Criteria C

C0: Passes. In the future, SourceHut will require payment for hosting
repositories. If paying through the website form, nonfree js will be
required, but Drew DeVault has said he's open to accepting cash or other
payment (and has accepted donations via such methods in the past, see
repo-criteria-discuss discussion linked above).

C1: Passes

C2: Passes. As Drew DeVault pointed out, sanctions may sometimes force
SourceHut to discriminate against some users, but this is a problem that
all centralized repository providers that obey the law will face, and
not the fault of SourceHut.

C3: Passes

C4: Passes: https://man.sr.ht/terms.md

C5: Passes: https://man.sr.ht/license.md

C6: Passes

# Criteria B

B0: Passes. It has LibreJS style license markup, but not quite right.
However, scancode (another license analyzer, correctly detects it is
AGPLv3-only
https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/git.sr.ht/tree/master/item/_static/linelight.js#L2)

B1: Passes

B2: Passes: https://man.sr.ht/license.md; public projects without a
license see the following message: https://sr.ht/s5pU.png

B3: Passes: https://man.sr.ht/license.md

# Criteria A

A0: Passes

A1: Passes: https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/?search=sr.ht

A2: Pass: Note: it does not mention "or-later", but links to gnu.org as
the place to find out how to apply the license, which does
https://man.sr.ht/license.md

A3: Pass:

A4: Fails

A5: Passes

A6: Fails

A7: Fails. There are some good endorsements of software freedom at
https://sourcehut.org/blog/, but the main sourcehut page,
https://sourcehut.org/, simply calls itself "100% free and open source
software" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#FOSS,
with a link that doesn't say anything more about it.

A8: Fails: https://sourcehut.org/ says "Runs fully virtualised builds on
various Linux distros and BSDs"

A9: Fails

## Criteria A+

A+0: Passes

A+1: Fails

A+2: Fails

A+3: Passes

A+4: Passes

A+5: Fails

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I propose that the evaluation read:
Things that prevent SourceHut from moving up to the next grade, A:
  * Allows nonfree licenses and no license (A4)
  * Says both "open source" and "free software" (A6)
  * Says “Linux” without “GNU” when referring to GNU/Linux. (A8) 
  * Allows nontrivial files in a package to not state their
    license even if the project itself is licensed (A9)

- Jack Pearson