recap of current proposals

[bill-auger]

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 11:34:47 +0200 Bert wrote:
> a tendency of discussing things in these threads that go way
> beyond the email subject that was set.

yes, that has been the case this month - to me, the confusion
is evidence that the entire criteria, and project goals need
re-evaluation - in attempt to resolve or clarify each
grey-area or discrepancy, yet another was exposed

across several threads, proposals were interleaved, for changes
regarding many topics - i have worked out a summary of the
recent topics - each of these could either be translated into
concrete patches, or presented as separate threads if there is
more to discuss, or if i have made any errors


* demoting gitlab.com to 'F'
  -> conclusion: affirmative
     per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00011.html

* considering the ethics of distributing unlicensed software
  -> conclusion: A4 is sufficient
     per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00025.html

* establish a checklist for repo evaluations
  -> conclusion: done, but not documented
     per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00043.html
     related: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Template:ERC_Checklist

* updating the failed, but now passing criteria, for github.com
  - now satisfies C2
    -> conclusion: make the change
       per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00070.html
  - does not satisfy C5
    -> conclusion: make the change
       per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-04/msg00002.html
    -> conclusion: offer ammendment to choosealicense.com explaining
                   the two options, gpl-3-only and gpl-3-or-later
       per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-04/msg00008.html
       related: https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com
  - still fails C0, so the final grade is unchanged
    -> conclusion: no change

* adding notabug.org
  -> conclusion: affirmative, grade 'C'
     note: only a trivial bug is preventing grade 'B'
     per: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Notabug

* adding sr.ht
  -> conclusion: affirmative, grade 'B'
     per: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Sourcehut

* evaluating pagure.io, codeberg.org, and others
  -> conclusion: TODO
     related: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Pagure

* adding a new list, dedicated to self-hosting software
  -> conclusion: affirmative
     per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00031.html

* adding a new list, dedicated to self-hosting providers
  -> conclusion: affirmative
     per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00038.html

* referring to hosts by their domain name
  -> conclusion: undecided
     per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-04/msg00046.html

* re-wording of several individual criteria
  - C2: "Does not discriminate against classes of users, or against any
         country, unless required by law to do so"
    -> conclusion: do not change
       per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-04/msg00004.html
  - C5: "No other license is recommended over GPL 3-or-later"
    -> conclusion: make the change
       per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00056.html
  - A2: "Recommends GPL 3-or-later over others"
    -> conclusion: make the change
       per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00056.html
  - A3: "Explains the GPL and AGPL '-or-later' option, and how to apply it."
    -> conclusion: undecided
       per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-04/msg00011.html
  - A4: "Does not permit non-free licenses for publicly-accessible repos"
    -> conclusion: make the change
       per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00058.html
  - A+1 add a note to the description, to avoid giving a naive false impression:
        "this criteria is based solely on the good faith of the forge admin"
      and:
         "there is no way to be certain that the admin or their service
         providers are not logging connections."
    -> conclusion: make the change, precise wording undecided
       per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00059.html

* adding new criteria
  - B1.9: "Explains each of the licensing options, distinguishing between
           GNU (2 and 3)-only and GPL (2 and 3)-or-later.
           Makes recommendations about whether and when to use each option."
    -> conclusion: proposed
       per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-04/msg00014.html
  - A+6: "Encourages use of AGPL 3-or-later as the preferred option"
    -> conclusion: affirmative
       per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-04/msg00005.html
  - A+7: "Helps or reminds users to put license notice in their source files."
    -> conclusion: proposed
       per: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-04/msg00014.html