repo-criteria-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CodeBerg addition


From: Aaron Wolf
Subject: Re: CodeBerg addition
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 12:33:55 -0800

I agree with and appreciate your summary Fritz.

I think best to move toward publishing a review. It's good-enough rather than perfect…

I imagine RMS had different impressions reading the summaries of the license suggestion issue. If we emphasize that there's this flaw in the UI, it looks more like failure. If we emphasize that non-free licenses are not allowed, then it looks like a UI glitch but a practical pass.

I suggest we publish as is with that issue as a pass but with a note about the UI bug in the review. We can link that note to the issue at https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1393

Aaron

On 11/1/24 12:47, Fischers Fritz wrote:
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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]