Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Sourceforge

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 18:04:58 -0400, John Sullivan wrote:
> This article in Ars mentions the criteria:
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/under-new-management-sourceforge-moves-to-put-badness-in-past/

I'd be curious of their rationale for US export controls on
cryptography---crypto export controls were declared unconstitutional in
1997.  Unless the software they are hosting falls under some other law
(like the Wassenaar Arrangement), which is unlikely.

But if they are forced to discriminate because of United States
laws---the laws of the country in which they operate (e.g. OFAC
compliance)---then we can't hold that against them, and from
conversations with Richard I don't have reason to believe that was his
intent.

With regards to the important site functionality, maybe someone can get
in contact with them to go over what the problems were; we can dig up
those evaluation details.

Does anyone on this list want to do that, or at least try to get a hold
of them and CC this list?

> I think the article shows what probably will be a common
> misunderstanding of the criteria, and we may want to add more
> explanation to the top of the page. I don't think:

Richard wanted to provide as little detail as possible; do you have
suggestions?  We do have a list of everything they failed (afaik), but
he didn't want to post it publicly.

> But, very good to see the criteria being referenced in stories like
> this.

Indeed, though without linking to them, it doesn't help spread the
criteria themselves too much; I'm not sure how many readers are going to
go out searching for them.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer
https://mikegerwitz.com       | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature