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

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > He was quoting me; I had corrected myself in a subsequent reply to him;
  > I forgot to note that in my message to you.  I rephrased as encouraging
  > users to apply license headers and copyright notices to source
  > files.  Since GitLab (and most other hosts) pretty much stop with
  > dropping a license file in the project root, it encourages bad practices
  > by failing to encourage proper licensing.

Now I understand, and I think you understand what needs to be changed.

  > The end result after saving this page is a LICENSE file added to the
  > repository root with that text.  This is technically SaaSS, since it's
  > modifying your repository on your behalf; I'd be curious to know your
  > opinion on this given its limited scope.

It is too trivial to be a problem.

  (It'd also be nice if COPYING
  > were added for the GPL, instead of LICENSE, but that's a more minor
  > issue.)

It should _always_ be called COPYING.  I agree it is a minor issue,
but it is also easy to change, so let's ask them to change it
but not push on it hard.

  > So, in my opinion, GitLab does not encourage adding a license enough: it
  > blends in with the rest of the content and is displayed with the same
  > regard as READMEs, Changelogs, and contribution guides.

I agree.  Even more important, it fails to lead people to add a
license in the proper manner -- with a notice in each source file,
stating (when it's the GPL) which GPL versions apply.

  > I think GitLab needs to state clearly---perhaps in a similar manner to
  > how they would show warning/error messages (but not necessarily that
  > exact style)---that the project doesn't have a license, and is
  > consequently non-free.  This would serve as a notice to the author, and
  > a warning to users.

Yes, that is one thing it should do.

  > Another topic that came up with the issue of where to include "or later"
  > for the GPL; obviously, if the license list simply prefills the license
  > text, then that is not the place to do it---that permission needs to be
  > granted in the source files.

"GPL 3-or-later" should be a choice offered in the menu of licenses.
If you choose that one, it should put a note to that effect in some file.

Then when the site reminds you to put a license notice in each source file,
it should give you the right notice.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.