Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:23 PM Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I was meaning to write on the next steps of switching to new tooling >> when I came across this: >> https://lwn.net/Articles/813254/rss >> https://www.fsf.org/blogs/sysadmin/coming-soon-a-new-site-for-fully-free-collaboration >> https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Fsf_2019_forge_evaluation >> >> In particular the last page claims with respect to GitLab: >> "GNU ethical repo criteria: gitlab.com listed as C, but has been >> operating at an F and will be reclassified soon because it sometimes >> requires users to run nonfree Google ReCAPTCHA code they have been very >> slowly working on moving away from for almost 2 years now [...]" >> >> What do people think about this? Is that serious enough to stop >> considering GitLab? >> >> Note that Gerrit is not on the list (probably because it's not a >> complete forge software, ie no issues?), so I can't comment on how it >> compares with respect to freedom. > > Gerrit is open source under the Apache 2 license. However, this is > comparing apples and pears. Because gitlab.com is a service provider, > that runs Gitlab for you. > > If we want someone to host our forge (eg. gitlab.com) for free or a > small fee, that will have to be an entity that needs to scale its user > support model (or it wouldn't be gratis). This typically means it > needs something like reCaptcha to heed off spam/abuse, and Tor access > is probably problematic for the same reason. > > This is also why I have a hard time taking the FSF's stance here > seriously. Their conditions make it almost impossible to use a > commercial provider. For example C2 "Does not discriminate against > classes of users, or against any country" is impossible to satisfy for > any US company due to export restrictions for countries like North > Korea and Iran. > > There is also a bunch of verbiage about how tracking tags are evil. > (lilypond.org has been running Google Analytics for 15 years or so).
Because? > I suggest to focus on the needs of our project, rather than the edicts > of RMS. The FSF is not the "edicts of RMS" and it wasn't reduced to that while he was president, either. They are to a good degree in the business of caring about details that are easily lost in complacency. There is a value in that. After all, our whole planet is slated for extinction through complacency by now. So I see no point in not trying to evaluate the feedback they bother to provide. Whether we are realistically in a position to make our project adopt it is a different question, but I see no point in ignoring it. >> Let me see if I can get more information on when they plan to bring >> the hosting platform online. It may well be that the recent upheavals have moved that somewhat to the backburner. Still good to check, though. -- David Kastrup My replies have a tendency to cause friction. To help mitigating damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".
