Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Include Gogs (Notabug.org) for consideration

[Mike Gerwitz]

(Zak---see your name below.)

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:51:55 +0100, Andrew Ferguson wrote:
> I thought I would have a look at NotABug.org to see what it would score on
> the criteria. I have evaluated it according to the latest version of the
> criteria,

Thanks for taking the time. :)

> and it scores an F. I have attached HTML code listing the
> evaluation that I think is in an appropriate format for addition to the
> evaluation page, but below I have added a more detailed explanation for the
> grade.
>
> C0 (important functionality works with LibreJS enabled) – FAIL. The
> following features do not work with LibreJS enabled:

Do you know if NotABug has any of their own custom code?  It might be
worth having someone talk to Gogs developers or submit a patch for
a licensing format recognized by LibreJS.

> C1 (no other nonfree software required) – FAIL? Much like GitHub, NotABug
> uses flash for the 'Copy to Clipboard' functionality. Does this mean it
> fails? (There is no mention of this on GitHub's evaluation).

Criterion-wise, that's fine; it's not essential for using the site.

> C2 (does not discriminate against classes of users) – FAIL?. Rather
> worryingly IMHO, there does not seem to be any Terms of Service for using
> NotABug. While this could be interpreted as 'everyone is allowed', I'm
> hesitant to say it passes this. Clarification?

I am not sure.

Zak?  Same with C4:

> C4 (no odious terms and conditions – FAIL – for the same reasons as C2.

> C5 (GPLv3-or-later as much as any other) – PASS – GPLv3 is included in the
> default list of licenses. There is no mention of 'or-later', but this would
> be added in the individual source files by the developer, rather than in the
> license file itself.

Does it have a license selection in the sense of verbatim licenses, or a
license to list on, say, a project page (as metadata)?  To me, if it's
the latter, it'd be important to be GPLv3+; otherwise, the license is
the license, IMO.

Zak: That's how I interpreted it in the GitLab evaluation.  For example,
GitLab has a license dropdown for creating a LICENSE file; it doens't
make sense to have GPLv3+ there, because that isn't the license;
or-later is granted in the license header or elsewhere.

> What do people on this list think? Is this a fair evaluation?

It seems pretty straightforward to me.  Let's see what Zak has to
say.  I'm assuming it'll have to be run by Richard in the end in any case.


> <h3 id="NotABug">NotABug -- F</h3>

Thanks. :)

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature