Summary of repo-criteria changes

[bill-auger]

the following is a summary of the proposed changes to the GNU
ethical repository criteria, and some additions and changes to
the evaluated forges

https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html
https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html

comments are encouraged - please send comments to the
repo-criteria-discuss mailing list, with the email subject
similar to the threads noted below as each "changes:"
  eg: Re: [PATCH]: refer to hosts by their domain name
  eg: Re: [PATCH]: criteria A4

https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/repo-criteria-discuss


=== outline ===

== proposed changes to the criteria: ==
* refer to forges by their specific domain name,
  rather than the common names (eg: 'gitlab.com' vs 'gitlab')
* re-word of C5
* re-word of A4
* re-word of A+1

== proposed additions to the criteria: ==
* B1.9
* A4-1
* A+7

== proposed changes and additions to the evaluated forges: ==
* demote gitlab.com, from 'C' to 'F'
* update github.com, grade 'C'
* add notabug.org, grade 'C'
* add sr.ht, grade 'B'
* add codeberg.org, grade 'B'

== new proposals: ==
* establish a new list, dedicated to self-hosting forge software
* establish a new list, dedicated to self-hosting (VPS) providers


=== details ===

== proposed changes to the criteria: == 

* refer to forges by their specific domain name,
  rather than the common names (eg: 'gitlab.com' vs 'gitlab')

  this was proposed in order to distinguish specific service
  instances, from the self-hosting versions of the underlying
  forge software, which may commonly be referred to by the same
  name

  discussion: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-04/msg00046.html
  changes:    
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00037.html
  changes:    
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00150.html

  along with those changes, an explanatory note is to be added:
    We refer to these services by their domain names,
    rather than their common names (eg: savannah.gnu.org vs.
    Savannah). That is because the software for most of these
    services is also available for self-hosting as Free Software.
    Installing that software on your own server, and using it
    yourself, avoids most of these ethical issues (all but A1).
    Therefore, here we address the ethics of the service
    operators.

  changes: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00149.html


* re-word of C5:
  from: Recommends and encourages GPL 3-or-later licensing at
        least as much as any other kind of licensing.
  to:   No other license is more recommended than the GPL
        3-or-later.

  discussion: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00056.html
  changes:    
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00077.html

  
* re-word of A4:
  from: Does not permit nonfree licenses (or lack of license) for
        works for practical use.
  to:   Does not permit nonfree licenses (or lack of license)
        for works of practical use, in publicly accessible repos.

  discussion: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00058.html
  changes:    
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00119.html

  
* re-word of A+1:
  from: Does not log anything about visitors.
  to:   Does not log anything about visitors.
        Note that this criterion is based solely on the good faith of
        the forge operators.  There is no way to verify from outside
        that the service does not log connections.

  this is to avoid giving a naive false impression

  discussion: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00059.html
  changes:    
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00148.html

  

== proposed additions to the criteria: ==

* B1.9: Explains the most common Free Software licenses,
        distinguishing between GNU 2 only and GPL 2-or-later,
        and between GNU 3 only and GPL 3-or-later.
        Makes recommendations about whether, when,
        and how to apply each option.
        If the forge software offers to install a license file,
        this documentation should be linked to,
        nearby the license selector.

  discussion: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-04/msg00014.html
  changes:    
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-07/msg00002.html


* A4-1: Does not permit nonsharing licenses (or lack of license)
        for any works in publicly accessible repos.

  discussion: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00049.html
  changes:    
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00119.html


* A+7: Helps or reminds users to put license notice in their source files. 

  the intention of A+7 is to require some technical
  mechanism to parse source files, upon each change, deduce if a
  license header is missing, and "remind" or "help" to add it, or
  correct it

  note that this would actually be A+6 - a proposed new A+6 was rejected

  discussion: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-04/msg00014.html
  changes:    
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00084.html



== proposed changes and additions to the evaluated forges: ==


* demote gitlab.com, from 'C' to 'F'
  - no longer satisfies C2

    discussion: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00000.html
    changes:    
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00035.html


* update github.com, grade C (no change in grade)
  - now satisfies C2

    discussion: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00070.html
    changes:    
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00034.html

  - does not satisfy C5

    discussion: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-04/msg00002.html
    changes:    
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00034.html 


* add notabug.org, grade 'C'
  evaluation: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Notabug
  discussion: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00052.html
  changes:    
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00036.html


* add sr.ht, grade 'B'
  evaluation: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Sourcehut
  discussion: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00004.html
  changes:    
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00036.html


* add codeberg.org, grade 'B'
  evaluation: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Codeberg
  discussion: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00000.html
  changes:    patch not yet made - reply to discussion thread



== new proposals: ==

* establish a new list, dedicated to self-hosting forge software
  this will require a new set of criteria to be written

  discussion: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00031.html
  changes:    none yet - reply to discussion thread

  
* establish a new list, dedicated to self-hosting (VPS) providers
  this is to supplement the list of self-hosting forge software
  this will require a new set of criteria to be written

  discussion: 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00038.html
  changes:    none yet - reply to discussion thread