Re: CodeBerg addition

[Aaron Wolf]

On 2024-04-15 7:09, bill-auger wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 20:46:59 -0800 Aaron wrote:
> > I'm suggesting that the UI having a dropdown in a form that shows an 
> > enormous list of free and non-free licenses *is* something to want 
> > fixed, but that because the docs specifically describe licenses in 
> > alignment with the criteria and because the Terms and enforcement meet 
> > the criteria as well, the incidental nature of the not-yet-fixed 
> > dropdown need not cause Codeberg to fail on the above criteria.
> >       
> i would not overlook that so easily - ive read the codeberg TOS and it is quite
> adamant about permitting only libre licenses - but if the UI will offer and
> install non-free licenses automatically, then some people will opt to do so -
> despite the stated policy, the effect is to allow non-free licenses; because i
> seriously doubt that the admins are actively policing that
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 08:24:17 -0800 Aaron wrote:
> > I did open issues on this and mentioned the criterion specifically.
> >
> > I vote for a pass despite this issue of the dropdown.
> >       
> can you link us to that ticket? - if the maintainers consider that to be a
> bug, there has been ample time to correct it now
>
>

https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1393 is one of the issues I opened, and it is noisy with some other community members expressing their opinions, but they do not represent the organization.

 I really have every reason to think that Codeberg *does* enforce their terms, it's not just a site that is hands-off, whatever. If any repo there does not use the libre licensing specified in the terms and does not fix it when the issue is brought up, the refusal to fix it *will* lead to the repo being removed from the site.

I *do* support noting this outstanding issue within a published GNU evaluation so that it brings attention to the concern and puts pressure on fixing it — even if they are granted a passing grade before it is fixed.