Re: (re-)evaluation of notabug.org

[bill-auger]

On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 01:36:28 -0400 Richard wrote:
> I think I took for granted that forges would comment on licensing
> options, not merely list them.
> That is very bad presentation of the licensing options.
> We should give that repo a bad mark.

again, "that repo" would not be exceptional in this regard - i
checked sourceforge and gitlab - those do not offer to install
license files; so they do not even "list them"

i did not find any documentation for gitlab explaining licenses

i noticed that sourceforge may pass B3 and A4, because the ToS
requires all projects to have OSI licenses - that is the only
mention of licenses i found; but that policy does link to
the OSI website, which describes the different licenses

as for the future of the listings over-all, C0 seems to be the
most common blocker - as best as i can tell, of the current
examples, only savannah passes C0 - of the proposed additions,
notabug, pagure, and sr.ht may pass C0 - i have not tried codeberg


> 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.

that was going to be my next point, regarding clarification of A3


currently:

  Offers use of AGPL 3-or-later as an option.

if the intention of A3 is:

  Explains the AGPL 3-or-later option.

but not also:

  Explains the GPL and AGPL '-or-later' option, and how to apply it.

then A3 (explains -or-later) would be a weaker form of the
proposed B1.9 (explains all licenses)