Re: CodeBerg addition

[Fischers Fritz]

>   > If Codeberg puts the unacceptable license in the dropdown
>   > but makes it very clear that you violate your agreement by choosing
>   > them and enforces the agreement, I would consider it a pass.
>   > It is just a really bad user interface.
> 
> That is not the right approach for judging our evaluation criteria.
> We have these criteria for practical reasons -- to judge whether the
> site's actions and statements fit what we can recommend.  It is not a matter
> of whether the site's developers mean well, but whether they have
> done the job right.

In this case, the criterion becomes unclear to me. It is likely relevant
that I have not read discussion of how each criteria was created.
Is there documentation on that? I suspect that would make the intent
more clear to me. In case not, I explain my confusion below, and perhaps
somebody else can try clarifying.



The issue of the license options in the dropdown menu relates to
criteria B3, A2, and A4. In these cases I thought that one could
accomplish "encourage", "recommend" by having a policy of acceptable
licenses and making people change the licenses if they choose
an unacceptable license. It sounds like the intent is something
more specific, and I don't know specifically what.

When I read most criteria, it sounds to me that good user interface
is not part of the criterion. For example, it is clear that C0, C1, C4,
and A1 are concerned with the agreement between the hosting service and
the end user and that a terrible user interface is acceptable. It is clear
that A0 relates to user interface and not policy (unless policy said
something like you must use JavaScript) but that a confusing user
interface is acceptable if it works.

A7 is one of few where I interpret the criterion as clearly requiring
a good user interface; it is clear to me in A7 that the endorsement
of freedom must be shown prominently, rather than being a small part
of a long document, for example.

Considering the discussion on rights and the explicit mention of user
interface quality for certain criteria, I thought a confusing user
interface was generally acceptable, unless otherwise mentioned.
But now it seems this was not the intent.

There are cases where the criteria could have very different meaning
depending on the relevance of a friendly user interface.

For example, consider "Does not discriminate against classes of users,
or against any country", criterion C2. I assumed this was referring
to the policy. But any particular choice of user interface will
discriminate against some users; indeed, we already have criterion A+4
for discrimination based on disability related to user interface.
If the intend is that C2 refer to interface rather than just policy,
then A+4 is logically part of C2.

Similarly, I believed that any access through Tor would be enough
to satisfy criterion C3. But if the confusing license menu would
cause the site to fail criteria B3, A2, and A4, it could be that
the intent was that access through Tor must be of high quality,
(for example, as fast as access without Tor).