Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Include Gogs (Notabug.org) for consideration

[Andrew Ferguson]

On 29/04/16 04:19, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> Do you know if NotABug has any of their own custom code?  It might be
> worth having someone talk to Gogs developers or submit a patch for
> a licensing format recognized by LibreJS.
There may be a negligible amount of custom code. However, it may take a 
while for a patch submitted to the Gogs developers to be incorporated 
into NotABug - Gogs is currently at version 0.9.22, while NotABug is 
running Gogs 0.6.1 Beta.
> Criterion-wise, that's fine; it's not essential for using the site.
Excellent. Once Zak has the time to check over the other aspects of the 
evaluation I'll publish an updated version indicating that NotABug has 
passed this section.
> Does it have a license selection in the sense of verbatim licenses, or a
> license to list on, say, a project page (as metadata)?  To me, if it's
> the latter, it'd be important to be GPLv3+; otherwise, the license is
> the license, IMO.
>
> Zak: That's how I interpreted it in the GitLab evaluation.  For example,
> GitLab has a license dropdown for creating a LICENSE file; it doens't
> make sense to have GPLv3+ there, because that isn't the license;
> or-later is granted in the license header or elsewhere.
NotABug is the same as GitLab. There is a dropdown menu in the repo 
creation stage that lists several licenses, with GPL v3 (as well as v2) 
being part of that list.
> It seems pretty straightforward to me.  Let's see what Zak has to
> say.  I'm assuming it'll have to be run by Richard in the end in any case.
I've seen Zak's latest message and just to clarify that there is no rush 
for this from my part: I'm currently very busy revising for my Scottish 
Higher exams, so I don't have much free time either! (Otherwise I would 
have time to campaign against DRM for Tuesday).

Andrew