Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] B2 for Gitlab?

[Mike Gerwitz]

Connor:

Thanks for the quick reply!

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 22:06:45 -0600, Connor Shea wrote:
> The below is copied (with modifications to make more sense in the context
> of this mailing list) from this comment on the relevant GitLab thread:
> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/15621#note_5064475
>
> So to clarify/break down the requirements:
>
> 1. "GPL v2" should be changed to "GPL v2 or later", and ditto for "GPL v3".
> The license text should also be changed to reflect this.

In the license listing, yes, "or later" should be added.

With regards to the "license text"---do you mean the text that'll be
placed in `LICENSE'?  If so, then no: that should be the GPL
verbatim.  The license itself isn't saying "or later"---it's the actual
notice on the source files themselves that says "you can use the version
of the GPL that I have provided, or you can use a future version
published by the FSF".

So you should recommend that "or, at your option, any later version" be
included, as recommended here:

  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

> 2. For projects without a license, the License field in the header should
> say something like "No License (Proprietary)". Would "All Rights Reserved"
> be acceptable?  If a user can contribute directly to a project (and
> that project has no license), they currently see "Add License" in
> place of any License text, I assume that's okay?

I'll get Richard's input.

> 4. Encourage users to include licensing information in every file. Would
> you mind providing an example of such a snippet? Would it be the full
> license, or is the license title and a link to the full license (either an
> external link via opensource.org or just a link to the license file as
> hosted on GitLab?) acceptable?

For the GPL, it's here (at the bottom):

  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

For other licenses, it varies.  Licenses that are short (like the MIT
Expat) usually just have the entire license in the header.  Here's a GPL
example:

  http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/src/buffer.c

But I'll ask Richard what he thinks about others.
  
> 5. Can you expand on how we would "ensure that licenses are applied
> correctly"?

"Ensure" was not a correct word for me to use in this case; a better
phrasing would be: "Encourage licenses to be applied correctly".  So,
that would mean encouraging copyright/license headers on source files,
for example; this would be satisfied as a consequence of everything
else that was mentioned.

> Does this mean, e.g. preventing forks (a feature which has been
> suggested before) and/or private forks would not be possible if the
> project was using a GPLv2+ license?

No---I wouldn't recommend preventing forking, since that discourages
making changes to the software (which discourages exercising Freedom
1).  I don't know what rms' stance would be on that sort of thing, but
if it's being considered, then we can certainly ask.

> Regarding number 3, the requirement of "prominently [encouraging] users to
> choose a license and [indicating] that a lack of license makes the software
> proprietary", we currently do this, is it acceptable?:

I don't think this points the lack of license out as an actual
problem---it's just suggesting that maybe they might want to add a
LICENSE file.

> Also, with a README (and/or other files) but no license, it displays
> slightly differently:

Similarly.

But I'll let Richard weigh in.

> Sidenote: I would encourage you to clarify grades to include version
> numbers, e.g. "as of GitLab 8.8 the grade is a B", so that users aren't
> downloading older versions with the expectation that they'll be using a
> product that is more free than it actually is.

For the sake of this evaluation, we're evaluating the instance hosted on
GitLab.com---if another site uses GitLab for hosting, then we'd have to
evaluate them separately.  It'd still be useful information, though.

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature