Re: CodeBerg addition

[wolftune]

I think Fritz has kept a more clean draft for the review (yes, Fritz?)

I believe Codeberg passes the C criteria, and it is close to passing the B 
criteria if some of that were clarified.

We discussed splitting up B0 to distinguish *being* free software from being 
recognized by LibreJS. Last we reviewed, we can humanly confirm that all the 
software is free but it is not being recognized by LibreJS, so as the criterion 
stands, it doesn't pass B0 for that reason. If this were two criteria, it would 
pass one and not the other.

As a *service*, Codeberg passes B2 and B3, but the new-repo form UI has a bug 
that shows licenses that Codeberg does not actually allow. This is not 
intentional of course, and they aren't encouraging bad licensing or 
recommending nonfree licenses. But this bug should be fixed to be more 
consistent in the presentation. I suggest we mark B2 and B3 as passing but make 
a bold note linking to the UI bug.

Most of A passes also. A6 is extra strong with the 'not "open source"' part, and Codeberg *does* 
use the language of "free software" but doesn't *omit* mention of "open source". It fails 
A9. And last we reviewed, A0 has an issue with sometimes triggering a block that they use to rate-limit 
access but I think it passes when that doesn't get triggered.

Anyway, the B items were the ones discussed here most recently.

I think we would do well to put up an initial review of Codeberg with some 
notes, perhaps mark it as in-progress, and then we can all be looking at the 
same thing and discuss specific points and then remove the in-progress note.

Aaron

On 11/28/24 8:19 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> 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. ]]]
>
>    > I imagine RMS had different impressions reading the summaries of the
>    > license suggestion issue. If we emphasize that there's this flaw in the
>    > UI, it looks more like failure. If we emphasize that non-free licenses
>    > are not allowed, then it looks like a UI glitch but a practical pass.
>
> Could you please spell out concretely what you are recommending?
> Which of these criteria would Codeberg pass and which would it fail?