Re: LibreJS (was Re: CodeBerg addition)

[Aaron Wolf]

My vote is to move the LibreJS criteria to higher grades, because I support LibreJS but do not like the idea that 100% free software failing LibreJS is the degree of downgrading that it is in the current criteria. I still think it is ideal, and Codeberg should work on it.

Anyway, two important fixes have already been made in the Codeberg code, they just haven't been deployed yet (update hasn't been made the live version yet). See https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/forgejo/commits/branch/codeberg-1.21

The link to choosealicense is already now fixed to be the Codeberg docs (which are currently excellent).

The link to licenses.txt was broken and is fixed in the code. https://codeberg.org/assets/js/licenses.txt was wrong, and https://codeberg.org/assets/licenses.txt is correct.

Is there a chance that the simple fix to the licenses URL link will address issues with LibreJS?

On 2024-01-09 8:30, Jing Luo wrote:

> 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
>       
>       
>