GitHub & GitLab Are Awful, What Does The FSF Suggest

A and A+ should be swapped

I use and have loved my time using Sourcehut

They are generous and refer to unix. GNU (GNU's not unix). Maybe we can mention them as well. LNG (Linux is Not GNU) if they want that mention so much. xD

I thought there would be more focus on actual ethical problems like github's relation to copilot and it's possible code laundering. Instead, most of the problems are made up.

LOLOL

Read their code if conduct, it literally has everything you need to know.. When your code of conduct has threats for violating sexual identity, your communist authoritarian. It's way over the top.

requiring payment would also ignore the anonimity of TOR, unless the payment was done using some of those anonymous digital currencies...

requiring the code to be licenced under a "ethical" licence only make sense if you want to be an repository for an distro (eg: ppa) then it make sense that both the code hosted and downloaded from an server should be libre.

Imagine another git service appears that fully meets the criteria for A and some A+ but then they just give them a B because “it’s a copy of our git service”

Yeah, they have ridiculous requirements for basically everything.

google does not allow you to use captcha without javascript so it is completely broken if you actually need no javascript because then you will also be using an ip that has been detected as being the source of abuse of google like a tor exit node because you don't need no javascript unless you are trying to be anonymous

When they say "has to be usable without javascript" and their offering is barely usable at all

So anyone tried Codeberg yet ?

I’m using GitHub because of work 🤷‍♂️

It would be interesting to fork their criteria. Of course, then you'd have to fork the FSF. I disagree with you about the licensing terms allowed by projects hosted on the site. I think non-free software is unethical. I do agree that many of the things in A tier are a little ridiculous.

I think Stallman is a profoundly weird individual, but I don't really have a problem with him, mostly. I do think that the clear thinking and unwavering dedication to the cause has been a huge deal, and not to be underestimated in importance. It also comes with these twisted reasoning justifications for things that are about his own ego though. 😞

I'm happy with gitblit. actually, you can sell gpl software. this is why I use agpl which means any changes must be shared.

Codeberg, anyone?

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!

I like what the FSF stand for, I really do. But they really are extremists to a fault.
If somehow they were in control of all software in the world, we'd still be using 1990s style GUIs and need greybeard level experts to set up a simple file share on a network.

C rating requires the site to function without non-free javascript. This means there could be fancy "extras" like a theme switcher, that require non-libre code, but the core functionality doesn't need it. B rating requires no non-free js at all.

Thank goodness we have GNU and FSF advocating for these policies. Their stance may seem trenchant, but that's necessary in the current tech climate.

It's GNU/Linux. It's not an ego thing. Gnu is just as essential to Linux as the Linux kernel. If anything, Linus refusal is an ego thing.

It would be hypocritical if they didn't consider their own service to be the highest tier, if they were fine with the other ones they wouldn't have made one themselves... but i definetely agree, some of these requirements are stupid.

If I ever invite RMS to a give a talk I will make sure to play Luke's video about the copypasta of using Alpine and it is a Linux not a GNU/Linux

Reminds me of when project websites compare their project to a competing project but only list the things that they can do that the competitor can't.

What about private repos on a platform, they should definitely be allowed to to not have a licence.

I think the JavaScript thing is that C tier says the website must be functional without nonfree code, but B tier says that the website must not use nonfree code

I think people who care about our code's impact on others gotta shrink our egos and learn to message more persuasively. Insistance on saying "free software" is a failure on both counts. The way "open source" is used has issues (gotta agree with Stallman & FSF there). We should talk about messages we can use to say what we're for while confusing people less. "Libre software" is one I like - though I wouldn't die on the "say 'libre' always" hill

You can advocate software freedom and code fairness w/o praying to "free software"

I'd suggest that a reasonable additional criteria for A tier would be: requires users to toss Stallman's salad on the regular.

I pretty strongly disagree with some of those. And I want to point out licensing in each individual file... Yeah, that's a lot of bloat when served over a network, such as would be the case with JavaScript. Plus, does it really matter all that much when it comes to compiled/transpiled code?

I'd also be curious to see what the FSF has to critique about other licenses (other than dumb terminology issues). What do they have against MIT or other licenses that seem to be even more free?

The “it’s unethical to force people to do things” argument ignores that non free licenses are designed to force people to do things. So by that logic it would be unethical to support those licenses.

It's interesting that they don't list Codeberg which probably meets their criteria for the B-tier. Also they don't allow non-free licenses which would make them a contender for the A-tier.

fsf is a joke. open source for life

I find this as stupid as it is scandalizing.

Stupid, because these criteria only help pushing the FSF more into obscurity, where they in my opinion do not belong. Stupid because ethics can not and should not be absolute and evaluating them with an absolutist attitude makes the innate ambivalence of ethics even worse (that requires an explanation, see below). From this attitude follows nothing but more stupidity.

It's scandalizing, because the FSF claims a singular and absolute authority over the term "ethical" with these criteria. It cannot claim that the usage of the term "Linux" is unethical (which it had to be if it contributes to downgrading). Linux was licensed under an early version of GPL. It was developed independently of GNU, though heavily relying on it. It independently contributed to the same goals as the GNU project. It used GNU software in compliance with the GPL. If GNU can claim that not labeling Linux as "GNU/Linux" and not transferring ownership of Linux to the FSF is unethical, then GNU would be ten times the trap it makes JS out to be.

We live in a world of shared and conflicting interests. Shared interests should help us resolve conflicts. Conflicts should help us appreciate sharing. Ethical behavior is to find a balance both in the distribution of contended rights and shared values. No matter how huge your contribution, if you try using it to cash in more than you are due, you are unethical in the extreme. That is because you demand more than what is due and you conceal your greed behind the very concept of the ethics you violate. That is sadly what these criteria do.

All of this upsets me, because I deeply appreciate what GNU contributed, I share most of their understanding and goals. But they are damaging the goals with such publications and they display a shocking lack of understanding. It's like someone insisting to help carry stuff, only to let it fall down the stairs and break it. And then they demand that I thank them and buy them a drink, because if they hadn't broken it, it would have been of great help. This is so cheap.

I started on github because of the idea that everyone uses it. Always hated it and finally realized all those eyes couldn't see or read so very happily on codeberg now. Issue quality much higher and noise way lower.

Free software relying on non free portals was always a truly bad idea. As if googlecode didn't teach us that lesson. And that was an actually quite good source repo. Made by and for engineers.

But github made the switch easy by letting marketing execs determine layout and policy decisions. They seemed to believe they could turn github into a social media property. I was like ummm no you're really confused. This is a source code repo. I actually felt bad for github devs who had to pretend thise were engineering decisions.

Relying on corporations is not a good idea for such core things. Fine for MS and itheir corporates and corporate wannabes. I prefer they use it. Keeps them off libre options. Scaling source repos hard. So glad github etc has those who want to be in hands of corporation.

Not to mention the ongoing cooyright violation that is copilot.

But corporations gotta do what they gotta do. Shareholder value is their only value by law.

GitHub biggest sin was pretending a cloned repo is a fork thus creating hordes of duplicates. Total mess. Should not be called fork until meaningful source changes committed to cloned repo.

I don't get the reasoning between free and non-free JS. It seems pointless.

Why aren't they crying about non-free HTML or CSS?

The FSF has done a lot of good, far in the past, but they are authoritarians dressed up in libertarian clothing.

I would be happy to move to gitlab. I actually did that for my personal projects when M$ bought GitHub, only contributing to others on the hub now.

"Alpine Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Linux minus GNU "

I needed to say this somewhere, and here is as good a place as any.

WTFPL not being allowed in the gnu sourceforce literally unusable

It is not just abut a new account. If I had to switch to something else I would have to change all github actions to something else and all the integration and testing and release methods. Github makes it easy to have all in one. Ah and I can build for mac on it, which i cannot from home.

You're a bit off on the licensing issue. Freedom isn't an imposition. Preventing those who undermine your objectives, either deliberatley or negligently, from using your platform isn't an intolerable burden on those so excluded.

Implying FSF is some sort of authoritarian organistation for daring to wall off and defend a space free from... authoritarianism... it's a bit weird.

The 'buff my ego' clauses are obvious trolls, but the meat and potatoes criteria are exactly on-point.

I disagree with your take on the license requirement

"gnu is good"
- the people at gnu

i'm no legal expert. but i know that for things like books, art and whatnot, if no license is mentionned, it is to be considered fully owned by its owner, plain and simple. Woudln't there be an equivalent of this with code? If nothing specified, default to full proprietary don't touch it?

one of them is "avoids saying linux without GNU" this is just stallman wtf