Re: CodeBerg addition

[bill-auger]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:45:21 -0700 Aaron wrote:
> On 2024-04-15 7:09, bill-auger wrote:
> > 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.

as i remember, a few years ago during the initial round of evaluations, there
were some codeberg maintainers participating on this list - it would be good to
get some feedback from them, at least stating that they are aware of the issue
and are willing to address it - without that, i would keep it as failing


On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:45:21 -0700 Aaron wrote:
>   I really have every reason to think that Codeberg *does* enforce their 
> terms

i expect that they would also, IFF the offending repo is brought to their
attention; but how does that happen? - i doubt that the admins are reviewing
every repo as savannah does - i suppose that relies on some other user reporting
the offending repo to the admins

the point i am arguing about mainly, is that the interface seems to be leading
people to choose non-free licenses; and if it installs a license file
automatically, it is actively helping them to do so - regardless that the
site policy, people generally do not read those; but every user will be
presented with those license options - in terms of the FSDG, that would
constitute a failure


On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:45:21 -0700 Aaron wrote:
> 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.

the only place to note that though, is the checklist - and the only way to
indicate it, is to mark the criteria as failing