The two established do code-repository services apparently not even meet in the slightest degree the ethical criteria of the nonprofit organization for free software. Better contrast cut from GNU Savannah and GitLab.
The Free Software Foundation has been studied in the code repository services Savannah, GitLab, GitHub and SourceForge, how they the ethical standards of the GNU Project match for such software project management services. As a hosting platform, which is to certify an excellent conversion of standards, however, is only the GNU Savannah own produce.
The only other acceptable management platform GNU projects GitLab is considered. When GitHub competitors of freely available JavaScript code was welcomed; as negative, however considered that GitLab not use the free browser extension for Mozilla Firefox browser LibreJS and also favors poor licensing practices, such as the omission of licenses.
“Unacceptable” for GitHub and Sourceforge
Very bad, namely to be unacceptable, GitHub and SourceForge come away. They appear to meet not even in the slightest degree the lines suggested by the FSF criteria. Both are down cleaned that they do not use the standards of GNU and Free Software Foundation under free JavaScript and would function important components of the services only with proprietary JavaScript. They are also criticized for not all features in all countries equally work, some do not even stand in some countries. At least with GitHub striving for more openness is perceived after recent GPLv3 was incorporated in the selection of licenses.
The GNU Ethical Criteria for code repositories were presented last year and to the code repository check services on its commitment to privacy and openness users toward. (ane)
No comments:
Post a Comment