Re: What does it matter, gitlab.com does not meet C-level for a long time

[Aaron Wolf]

On 2019-10-31 10:30 a.m., Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> Aaron Wolf <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 2019-10-31 8:09 a.m., Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>>> bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> wrote:
>>>> the answer is most likely that things have changed; and these things need 
>>>> to be re-evaluated from time to time - evaluations are done by members of 
>>>> the community - are you volunteering?
>>>
>>> There is actually nothing much to volunteer to, I already mentioned all the 
>>> essential points: gitlab.com website is unusable without ad-hoc software, 
>>> which is not free because no sources are provided (sourcemaps are bogus).
>>
>> On CAPTCHA, GitLab is in testing on the roll-out of a different approach: 
>> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/issues/46548
> 
> Nice to hear that, yet it does not amend the fact that gitlab.com 
> webinterface is unusable without running nonfree scripts.
> 

Please distinguish between "nonfree scripts" and "librejs-unrecognized
scripts".

Note that at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/blob/master/LICENSE it
specifies that "All client-side JavaScript (when served directly or
after being compiled, arranged, augmented, or combined), is licensed
under the "MIT Expat" license."

There may be other concerns about the reliability of the JS, but I have
every reason to think that 100% of the web interface is usable with the
freely-licensed JS enabled. LibreJS not recognizing it as free is an
issue with the way the licenses are presented and/or a problem with
LibreJS. The license of the software isn't defined by LibreJS's recognition.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature