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 21:47:54 -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 04/12/2016 09:36 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
>
> If LibreJS-compatible is *the* criterion, then GitLab fails. Period.

It does not, unless things have changed recently; I worked with Sytse to
make sure all the essential features worked with JS completely
disabled.  That's either in the message archives for this mailing list,
or in our threads before it was created; I forget.

> (A) specify the criteria as verifiably-free and state that Sourceforge
> JS isn't verifiable
>
> or
>
> (B) specify the criteria as LibreJS-verified specifically and fail GitLab

I'm okay with A, but not B.  If I can use Gitlab without JS enabled,
then it's not an issue; at least by rms' philosophy.  I personally don't
want to recommend sites where users will run proprietary JS, but that
essentially rules out the entire Web, which is his point.

> I would suggest option (A) and to reach out to Sourceforge asking for
> their assistance in verifying the freeness of their JS.

Zak (and rms) want to get this out, so we may have to make a mention and
then update it after the fact.

Zak, just let me know what you and rms would like done and I'll make
some text changes.

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature