Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] What's needed to publish the evaluations (aka the longest email ever {aka two specific tasks})}

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 21:27:34 -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> I find the Sourceforge report problematic. I haven't verified this
> myself, but I believe that the vast majority of Sourceforge JavaScript
> is free, if not all, and comes directly as part of Apache Allura.

But it's not LibreJS-compatible, which is the criterion.

> I see no valid reason to accept that GitLab has free but
> non-LibreJS-recognized JS but not give the same credit to Sourceforge.
> We should verify with Sourceforge themselves (especially before
> publishing this report). The list of "non-free or non-LibreJS" for
> Sourceforge seems to careless given that almost all of the JS if not all
> is likely only a LibreJS issue and not a non-free issue. I suspect
> Sourceforge is actually very close to passing as well as GitLab except
> for the terms item.

That'd require a complete evaluation of Sourceforge's JavaScript to
correlate all the minified code with what is available in the
repository; that's not an easy process.  I did so with Reddit for the
FSF, and even then I wasn't comparing byte-for-byte.

I won't have time for that any time soon, and it could change at any
moment.  The best I can suggest for the evaluation is possibly stating
that much of the JavaScript is free under the Apache Allura project, but
none is LibreJS-compatible.

GitLab is no problem because Sytse and I modified the EE license to
explicitly state that all JavaScript---generated or static---served to
the client is free, so there is no doubt.  (Sytse's idea.)

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer
https://mikegerwitz.com
FSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature