B2

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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 such as adding non-free clauses to licenses and using outdated versions 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)