Re: (re-)evaluation of notabug.org

[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. ]]]

  > the norm is simply a 'drop-down' option selector, with terse
  > labels: [ 'BSD', 'MIT', 'GPL3', 'None', .... ] - the only
  > priority, which anyone may interpret from it, is the vertical
  > order of the options

That is very bad presentation of the licensing options.
We should give that repo a bad mark.

The C options say nothing about it.  Of the B options,
only these two seem to come near it,

    <li id="B2"><p>Does not encourage bad licensing practices (no
        license, unclear licensing, GPL N only).
        <strong>(B2)</strong></p></li>

    <li id="B3"><p>Does not recommend nonfree licenses for works of
        practical use.  <strong>(B3)</strong></p></li>

but neither of them addresses this point.

I think I took for granted that forges would comment on licensing
options, not merely list them.

Maybe it needs B1.9: Explains each of the licensing options,
distinguishing between GNU 2 only and GPL 2-or-later
and  between GNU 3 only and GPL 3-or-later.  Makes recommendations
about whether and when to use each option.

  > the options are presented once, upon new repo instantiation; and
  > the result is only to initialize the new repo with a license
  > file and an empty README

Perhaos we need an A+ option for
  Helps or reminds users to put license notice in their source files
  to go with whatever license they have chosen.

WDPT?


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)