[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Please review

From: Yuchen Pei
Subject: Re: Please review
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 23:38:03 +1000
User-agent: mu4e 1.4.13; emacs 27.2

Yuchen Pei <> writes:

Yuchen Pei <> writes:

Richard Stallman <> writes:

[[[ 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 filled in B2 based on answer to Q9 at   > 
> also Q13 but that is for A2.

I can't access messages easily using those URLs. Would you please
identify the message by its From: field and its Date; field?
With those, I can find it quickly.

From: Adam Faiz

  > I'm not sure if the choice of licenses is discussed   >
elsewhere on   > the docs.

B2 is NOT just a matter of "choosing" the license. Whichever form
licensing you choose, you must state it clearly _in the package source_. If a site doesn't tell people to do that, and give clear directions to do it right, then it encourages unclear licensing

You are right, and after reading the forwarded discussions, I agree codeberg failed B2. Updated

  > By the way I could not navigate the   > with   > librejs on:

  > > blocked scripts in
  > >   > >
  > >   > > External script with no known license
  > >
  > >   > > External script with no known license

  > Does that mean it fails C0?

I think so. But I don't know what does. What
it do?  Is it an important site function?  (That is a judgment
not a mechanical decision.)

It is the documentation site of and the place where I looked for answer to Q9. I think it is rather important for someone
unfamiliar with codeberg, but not so much for an experienced
user. Attached is a screenshot of the landing page with the toc on
librejs off. Turning on librejs, the toc seems to be only accessible
by inspecting the source of the webpage.

OTOH the blocked scripts seem rather simple:

I think the way forward on this is to report the issue and / or send
pull request at the repo

I've reported an issue, and will work on a PR.

Looks like they decided to wait for some migration which presumably would fix the docs librejs compliance:

OTOH they also mentioned thir Terms of Use does not permit "no license" ( (see below for the quoted message), so A4 ( is satisfied. If no one opposes I'm going to mark A4 as satisfied on the wiki page. Here I quote the message in the issue: permits "lack of license" as the license field is optional
when creating a new repo.

That's not true. Although it's technically possible to create an empty repo, it's of course up to the user to choose a correct licence. Some people like to put licence files differently than creating a Markdown-formatted file, so creating empty repos will always be an option. You can also push content locally via CLI, so having that option in the GUI does not prevent anyone from pushing unlicenced code, or code licenced in a way that is not considered free software.

But, the Terms of Use clearly reads in section "Service" ( ) :

For Free and Open Software projects (FOSS) as defined by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source Initiative (OSI), Codeberg provides Repository and Version Control, Wiki, and Issue Tracker hosting under
certain terms and conditions
Our service is open for all projects working under a license compatible with either the Open-Source-License definition of the Free Software
foundation (FSF) or the Open Source Initiative (OSI).

and later ( ) :

User-contributed content in all repositories, wikis and issue trackers:

* must only contain code and data compatible with the Open-Source license
requirements defined by FSF or OSI [...]

So every non-free code on our site is a clear violation of our Terms of Service, and since only content compatible with OSI / FSF definitions is accepted, code not covered by a licence violates our ToS, too.


PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]