Re: CodeBerg addition

[Fischers Fritz]

Dear hackers,

I recount prior correspondence and then present some questions.

On January 3 I presented my opinion that a particular bug in Codeberg
should not prevent Codeberg from passing the relevant criteria.
> 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.

On January 10 Richard concluded it does not pass.
> 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.
> 
> That being so, if a site's UI is self-contradictory or unclear about a
> point we consider crucial, such as this one, we should not "give them
> credit for good intentions".

On October 29 Aaron presented an issue with license creation.
> For example, they only allow freely-licensed projects but they haven't
> fixed an upstream inheritance that shows a license dropdown during
> new-repo creation that includes both free and non-free licenses (but
> picking the non-free is still not actually allowed by Codeberg, and
> they just need to get to fixing this issue). I vote to give qualified
> pass to such things, including links to open issues in the write-up
> but accepting that they do indeed not allow non-free licenses.

On November 1 Richard concluded this does pass.
> That sounds like a minor bug which does not affect what Codeberg
> actually allows.  We should report it but it should not affect
> our evaluation.

My questions:

1. Are the relevant criteria B3, A2, and A4?
2. Were Aaron and I explaining the same flaw? If yes, how did Richard
   arrive to different conclusions?
3. Richard also asked about the issue of GitHub and some other repos
   writing the file but not guiding you to put license notices in source
   files. I believe this flaw would cause a failure of criterion A4
   but would not affect criteria B3 nor A2. Is that correct?

Please accept the expression of my highest consideration.
Fritz