Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] What's needed to publish the evaluations (aka the longest email ever {aka two specific tasks})}

[Aaron Wolf]

On 04/13/2016 05:51 AM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> 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.
> 

Ok, so the issue is *not* just freedom of JS, it is *only* LibreJS or
NoScript / no-JS compatible. I.e. Sourceforge would fail even if it were
shown that all JS is fully free.

As is, the report appears unclear. It could be read that we're saying
Sourceforge JS is either non-free or not verifiably free. The wording
should be changed so that it is clear that the listed operations do not
work without JS and that the JS is not recognized by LibreJS. There
should be no reference to whether the JS is free or non-free because (A)
it is likely that it is actually free and (B) if we verified that it was
free, it would still fail the criteria.

So, please remove the reference to non-free JS in the report. Update the
report to say "operations that require JavaScript which LibreJS does not
recognize as free" or similar wording.