Re: Please review codeberg.org

[Yuchen Pei]

Yuchen Pei <hi@ypei.me> writes:

> Yuchen Pei <hi@ypei.me> writes:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > From: Adam Faiz
> >
> > >   > 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.
> >
> > You are right, and after reading the forwarded discussions, I 
> > agree
> > codeberg failed B2. Updated 
> > https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Codeberg.
> >
> > >   > 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.)
> >
> > It is the documentation site of codeberg.org and the place 
> > where I
> > looked for answer to Q9. I think it is rather important for 
> > someone
> > unfamiliar with codeberg, but not so much for an experienced
> > user. Attached is a screenshot of the landing page with the toc 
> > on
> > and
> > librejs off. Turning on librejs, the toc seems to be only 
> > accessible
> > by inspecting the source of the webpage.
> >
> > OTOH the blocked scripts seem rather simple:
> >
> > https://docs.codeberg.org/assets/js/collapse.js
> > https://docs.codeberg.org/assets/js/sidebar.js
> >
> > I think the way forward on this is to report the issue and / or 
> > send
> > a
> > pull request at the repo 
> > https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation
>
> I've reported an issue
> https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/issues/145, and will 
> work on a PR.

Looks like they decided to wait for some migration which 
presumably would fix the docs librejs compliance:

https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/issues/145#issuecomment-210498

OTOH they also mentioned thir Terms of Use does not permit "no 
license" 
(https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/issues/145#issuecomment-210324) 
(see below for the quoted message), so A4 
(https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html#A4) is 
satisfied. If no one opposes I'm going to mark A4 as satisfied on 
the wiki page. Here I quote the message in the issue:

> > codeberg.org permits "lack of license" as the license field is 
> > optional
> > when creating a new repo.
>
> That's not true. Although it's technically possible to create an 
> empty repo, it's of course up to the user to choose a correct 
> licence. Some people like to put licence files differently than 
> creating a Markdown-formatted file, so creating empty repos will 
> always be an option.
> You can also push content locally via CLI, so having that option 
> in the GUI does not prevent anyone from pushing unlicenced code, 
> or code licenced in a way that is not considered free software.
>
> But, the Terms of Use clearly reads in section "Service" ( 
> https://codeberg.org/codeberg/org/src/branch/master/TermsOfUse.md#service 
> ) :
>
> > For Free and Open Software projects (FOSS) as defined by the 
> > Free Software
> > Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source Initiative (OSI), Codeberg 
> > provides
> > Repository and Version Control, Wiki, and Issue Tracker hosting 
> > under
> > certain terms and conditions
> > [...]
> > Our service is open for all projects working under a license 
> > compatible
> > with either the Open-Source-License definition of the Free 
> > Software
> > foundation (FSF) or the Open Source Initiative (OSI).
>
> and later ( 
> https://codeberg.org/codeberg/org/src/branch/master/TermsOfUse.md#repositories-wikis-and-issue-trackers 
> ) :
>
> > User-contributed content in all repositories, wikis and issue 
> > trackers:
> > [...]
> >
> >
> >
> > * must only contain code and data compatible with the 
> > Open-Source license
> > requirements defined by FSF or OSI [...]
>
> So every non-free code on our site is a clear violation of our 
> Terms of Service, and since only content compatible with OSI / 
> FSF definitions is accepted, code not covered by a licence 
> violates our ToS, too.

Best,
Yuchen

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature