Re: Notabug.org should be moved to B tier

[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. ]]]

  > actually, notabug may satisfy the entire 'A' class - the checklist has A2, 
A3,
  > and A9 unchecked; but we later determined that it passes A3 and A9 - i 
forgot
  > to tick those boxes afterward - this is an excerpt from my last review:

We should finish determining where it stans on A2.
Here's what you said:

  > interpreted strictly, it is unlikely that any forge other than savannah 
would
  > ever pass A2 - that is simply because forges do not literally "recommend" 
any
  > licenses - they merely offer licenses as an option for new empty repos - 
they
  > may or may not recommend that you select any license,c though a few forges
  > require that the license be in the sets approved by the FSF or OSI; but most
  > forges do not mention licenses beyond that

  > the notabug documentation about licensing, though very brief, is actually a
  > relatively strong recommendation of the GPL compared to any other forge than
  > savannah

I'm having trouble making sense of all of this together.

   - that is simply because forges do not literally "recommend" any
  > licenses - they merely offer licenses as an option for new empty repos -

Offering a specific license in a list of licenses to choose from IS a
way of recommending that license.  Please don't make a spurious
semantic distinction between those two.

                                                                             
they
  > may or may not recommend that you select any license,

What does that mean -- what does "recommend that you select
any license" mean to you?

                                                          though a few forges
  > require that the license be in the sets approved by the FSF or OSI; but most
  > forges do not mention licenses beyond that

If the site recommends all of those licenses equally, 

  > the notabug documentation about licensing, though very brief, is actually a
  > relatively strong recommendation of the GPL

Looking at the actual text (thanks for presenting it!), 

  > > NotABug.org is a free-software code collaboration platform for freely 
licensed projects.
  > > We exist to help projects that distribute under any free license.
  > > These include, but are not limited to:
  > > 
  > >     The GNU Affero General Public License
  > >     The GNU General Public License
  > >     The Lesser GNU General Public License
  > >     The Apache License
  > >     The two clause BSD License
  > >     The three clause BSD License
  > >     The MIT License

This doesn't particularly recommend any of the permitted licenses
more than any other.  So I'd say it does not pass A2.

Do you see what I mean?

Do you think I'm right in that conclusion?


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