Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Launched! Evaluation time

[Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro]

Hello Zak and everyone else!


Em Fri, 16 Oct 2015 17:34:15 -0400
"Zak Rogoff, Free Software Foundation" <address@hidden> escreveu:

> Could people please sound off on which sites they are evaluating and
> what level of completion the evaluations are? Keep in mind that they
> need to be updated for version 1.0 of the criteria.

Considering RMS' requests and the version 1.0 of the criteria, the
updated evaluations of GNU Savannah, GitHub and SourceForge are
available in the attached file 'repo-criteria-eval.html'.  This file
is designed and ready to be placed at

http://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-eval.html.

Feel free to suggest improvements.  Although I do have a reasonably
current evaluation of GitLab ready for publication, I decided to let
this to Mike's discretion.


> Richard also has requested that we have a table on the main page that
> just lists the site's overall grade, and then a separate page that
> breaks it down in more detail. Who's interested in creating that?

This is done.  However, I suggest not only maintaining that table on the
evaluation page, but also moving the acknowledgements section there as
well.


-- 
 88888  FFFFF Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro (oitofelix) [0x28D618AF]
 8   8  F     http://oitofelix.freeshell.org/
 88888  FFFF  mailto:address@hidden
 8   8  F     irc://chat.freenode.org/oitofelix
 88888  F     xmpp://address@hidden

- GNU ccd2cue maintainer
- GNU Savannah hacker
- GNU webmaster
- GNU audio and video maintainer
- GNU ethical repository criteria maintainer
- GNU web translation team coordinator (Brazilian Portuguese)
- DMOZ free software editor (Portuguese)
- UFU FAMAT PET member
- SDF Public Access UNIX System ARPA member
- Riseup user and supporter

Please, support my work: http://oitofelix.freeshell.org/funding.html

[GNU DISCLAIMER] I'm a GNU hacker, but my views don't necessarily
match those of the GNU project.  Hereby I express my own opinion,
style and perception, in good faith, aiming the betterment of GNU.

GNU ethical repository criteria evaluations

We maintain this evaluation report presenting the compliance level of popular sites to the GNU ethical repository criteria. There are some criteria that we can’t possibly verify, in which case we accept the site maintainer’s word on the matter. This evaluation is done by volunteers and you are welcome to contribute.

Site	Grade	Date
GNU Savannah	A	2015-10-01
GitHub	F	2015-08-31
SourceForge	F	2015-10-07

GNU Savannah — A

Things that prevent it from moving up to the next grade A+:

• There are normal web access/download logs which sometimes include IP addresses. (A+1)
• It follows EFF’s criteria only partially. Complying with the rest remains in progress. (A+2)
• HTML_CodeSniffer reports dozen of errors and warnings related to WCAG 2.0 compliance on every page. (A+3)
• There is no WAI-ARIA markup in its pages. (A+4)
• Currently there is no way of exporting data contributed by project owners or contributors. (A+5)

GitHub — F

Things that prevent it from moving up to the next grade C:

• The following important site functionality doesn’t work without running nonfree or non-LibreJS compliant _javascript_: (C0)
• Change repository name;
• Change repository description;
• Delete repository;
• Add an SSH key;
• Pull request;
• Enable and disable project features;

Qualified passes for the next grade C:

• Although it doesn't deliberately discriminate any country, specific information may not be available in all countries by legal reasons. See roskomnadzor and export controls for more details. (C2)
• GitHub and choosealicense.com goes as far as possible against GPL within the bounds of plausible deniability. In other words, they do the absolute bare minimum to just arguably pass this criteria. This is the rationale supporting this conclusion: (C5)
• They relegate GPL to the third option;
• They make the wording to emphasize that Expat/MIT should be the standard default;
• They assert that the license to use for patent concerns is Apache v2 (and they fail to mention that GPLv3 deals with patents as well);
• They carefully word the explanation of GPL to avoid reference to passing on freedoms and only make it about contributing code back (which is not actually the correct interpretation of GPL);
• They push people toward GPLv2, undermining GPLv3 adoption;
• They describe GPLv3 as not an improved license but characterize it to sound like it just has some meaningless jargon most people won’t get or care about;

SourceForge — F

Things that prevent it from moving up to the next grade C:

• The following important site functionality doesn’t work without running nonfree or non-LibreJS compliant _javascript_: (C0)
• Create first project; (stumbles in phone verification)
• Upload files, create a folder or use interactive file manager;
• Enable, disable or delete reviews;
• Reply to, link to, edit, delete, mark as spam or add attachments to discussion posts;
• Create, delete, revert, add attachments to, or unsubscribe from wiki pages;
• Access wiki, code, ticket, discussion and blog administration menu;
• Access RW, RO and HTTP checkout commands;
• Browse commits;
• Merge code by merge requests;
• Subscribe/unsubscribe to code commit notifications;
• Add attachments to tickets;
• Bulk edit and move of tickets;
• Column sort and selection in ticket browser;
• Add, delete and edit ticket milestones and searches;
• Moderate or label discussions;
• Administrate forums;
• View statistics graph;
• Set project status;
• Upload a project icon;
• Install tools;
• Set user permissions;
• Its term of use states: (C2)

  Users residing in countries on the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control sanction list, including Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria, may not post Content to, or access Content available through, SourceForge.net.

Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <address@hidden>. There are also other ways to contact the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent to <address@hidden>.

Please see the Translations README for information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article.

Copyright © 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

This page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Updated: $Date: 2015/05/18 06:12:54 $

pgpChd2XCO7bn.pgp
Description: Assinatura digital OpenPGP