Re: Please review codeberg.org

[Yuchen Pei]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> [[[ 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. ]]]
>
>   > I filled in B2 based on answer to Q9 at 
>   > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00005.html. There's 
>   > also Q13 but that is for A2.
>
> I can't access messages easily using those URLs.  Would you 
> please
> identify the message by its From: field and its Date; field?
> With those, I can find it quickly.

I'll try this one more time (previous two messages removed the 
date field I included):

The From field was Adam Faiz and the date field was Thu, 3 Jun 
2021 19:35:07 +0800

>   > I'm not sure if the choice of licenses is discussed 
>   > elsewhere on 
>   > the docs.
>
> B2 is NOT just a matter of "choosing" the license.  Whichever 
> form of
> licensing you choose, you must state it clearly _in the package
> source_.  If a site doesn't tell people to do that, and give 
> clear
> directions to do it right, then it encourages unclear licensing
> practices.
>
>   > By the way I could not navigate the 
>   > https://docs.codeberg.org with 
>   > librejs on:
>
>   > > blocked scripts in https://docs.codeberg.org/:
>   > > 
>   > > https://docs.codeberg.org/assets/js/collapse.js:
>   > > 
>   > > External script with no known license
>   > > https://docs.codeberg.org/assets/js/sidebar.js:
>   > > 
>   > > External script with no known license
>
>   > Does that mean it fails C0?
>
> I think so.  But I don't know what docs.codeberg.org/ does. 
> What does
> it do?  Is it an important site function?  (That is a judgment 
> call,
> not a mechanical decision.)


--
PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature