It was moved as a means of housekeeping so that we can discuss each specific criterion separately.
Direct links to the images are here:
Thanks,
Connor Shea, GitLab Frontend Engineering Intern
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Mike Gerwitz <
address@hidden> wrote:
Richard:
GitLab has reached out (see entire message quoted below) with regards to
criterion B2, "Does not encourage bad licensing practices (no license,
unclear licensing, GPL N only)". There are some questions that I feel
would be best answered by you directly; this would be a great
demonstration of a host working toward improving their standing, and
essential for working toward solving the huge licensing crisis we have
with repository hosts.
There are screenshots referenced in the message below, which are visible
here:
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/15621#note_5064475
My original message is that he is replying to is
<address@hidden>, which he quotes in his list below.
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2016-04/msg00067.html
My reply to Connor is a sibling of this thread <address@hidden>.
I have indicated the parts inline that I specifically wanted your input
on:
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
>
> --------------
>
> Hey Mike,
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
Richard: how do you feel about "All Rights Reserved"? I suggested that,
in GitLab's license list, they require the user to select a license; if
the user really does not want to select one, then there should be an
option they can select to indicate that they understand that their
software is propreitary.
The license list is visible in one of the screenshots.
>
> 3. GitLab needs to suggest that a project without a license should add one.
> (See screenshots attached/expanded upon below for current, similar
> implementation)
>
> 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?
Richard: The first sentence is a quote from my original message.
You had mentioned to me that we should encourage (/require) clear
licensing on all source files, so he is inquiring about the means of
doing so. For the GPL, that's clearly documented. Do you have opinions
on other licenses? For example, I've seen the entire Expat license put
in the source file header because it's pretty small. But I'd also
imagine it's okay to reference the license unambiguously in the header
(e.g. as stated on the FSF's license list) and reference a file in the
source tree, as we do with the GPL.
>
> 5. Can you expand on how we would "ensure that licenses are applied
> correctly"? 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?
>
> --------------
>
> 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?:
>
> [See Attachment 1]
>
> Also, with a README (and/or other files) but no license, it displays
> slightly differently:
>
> [See Attachment 2]
Richard: See screenshots on the aforementioned URL. I don't think these
will suffice, but maybe you'll have useful suggestions for how they
format it.
>
> --------------
>
> Thank you very much for helping us out with this :)
>
> 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.
>
> Apologies if I've messed anything up, I'm new to Mailman lists.
>
> --------------
>
> Connor Shea, GitLab Frontend Engineering Intern
>
> GPG Public Key ID: 2048R/7DB73ED1
>
>
I can work with them on meeting the criteria from there.
--
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer
https://mikegerwitz.com
FSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB
