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

[Zak Rogoff]

On 04/13/2016 03:07 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 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.

It depends on which criterion you are talking about. C0 requires simply
that the site's important functions work with LibreJS turned on. B0
requires that all scripts sent to the browser are free and correctly
labeled for an automated license analyzer.

I don't think I 100% grasp the details of Aaron's concern, but I feel
that it would definitely be good for us to have a more user-friendly
explanation of the various levels of suitability for use with LibreJS
that we see exhibited by different Web sites. However, I think that the
criteria are not ambiguous, and Mike's report applies the criteria
correctly.

-- 
Zak Rogoff // Campaigns Manager
Free Software Foundation