Re: LibreJS (was Re: CodeBerg addition)

[Jing Luo]

On 2024-01-07 13:31, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [...]
>
>   > Suggestions on how to improve librejs to make site administrators 
> life
>   > easier to comply are welcome :)
>
> All else being equal, we would like to make it easier -- but not by
> eviscerating the checking it is supposed to do.

In CodeBerg's case, I still think it could take years for it to be 
libreJS compliant. I expect upstream Gitea completely to ignore the 
libreJS issue, because not only that stale ticket [1] was opened in 
2020, Gitea was taken over by a company and gone very commercial in 
2022. IMHO Gitea cannot be trusted to free our software, so that's why 
we have Forgejo->Codeberg.

The dropdown list of many licences with some nonfree, and the 
problematic "choose license" link, together with libreJS issue have 
bothered me. For my self-hosted forgejo instance, I'm considering a 
fork, to patch all of these, to insert correct licensing info into all 
js files, but it could take months, and I will have to learn Go language 
and deb packaging. Then if I submit my patch to Codeberg, they may 
accept it, so the whole process could take a year or so. What does it 
mean for your repo evaluation? Or, do you make exception for Codeberg 
for C0.0 and B0? Or, do you consider changing C0.0?

Thu,  4 Jan 2024 18:51:17 +0900 (JST) From: Jing Luo <jing@jing.rocks>
====
[...] changing the criteria C0.0 to something like "the javascript 
should be free but it doesn't have to be librejs compliant"?
====

[1] https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/13393

--
Jing Luo
About me: https://jing.rocks/about/
PGP Fingerprint: 4E09 8D19 00AA 3F72 1899 2614 09B3 316E 13A1 1EFC

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature