From LibrePlanet
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the GNU Ethical Repository Criteria Evaluations (ERC) evaluation checklist for Notabug, as compiled by the Community Workgroup for Libre Forge Software and Ethical Repository Hosts. The text of each criteria in the checklist table is a hyper-link to the relevant section of the ERC. Please send any questions or comments to the repo-criteria-discuss mailing list.

ERC Checklist for Notabug
C0 - Freely licensed JS for essential features
C0-0 - Either: 'B0' with CCS for client-code scripts, or 'A0'
C0-1 - Libre interpreters, "trans-pilers", and input sources
C1 - No non-free client requirements
C2 - No discrimination
C3 - Tor access
C4 - Non-odious TOS
C5 - Recommends GPLv3-or-later
C6 - HTTPS access
B0 - Compatible with LibreJS (or equivalent tool)
NOTES: one script was rejected - it is perhaps a missing or outdated web-label

B1 - No tracking
B2 - Does not encourage unclear licensing
B3 - Does not recommend non-free licenses
A0 - Fully-functional without client-side scripts
A1 - Freely-licensed server-side code
A2 - Prefers GPLv3-or-later projects
NOTES: pending clarification of this criteria
A3 - Offers AGPLv3-or-later
NOTES: pending clarification of this criteria
A4 - Does not permit non-free licenses
A5 - Does not recommend SaaSS
A6 - Does not mention “Open Source”
A7 - Clearly endorses software freedom
A8 - Refers to GNU/Linux, wherever applicable
A9 - Requires thorough and clear licensing
NOTES: no such requirement
A-plus 0 - Registration not required
A-plus 1 - No logging
A-plus 2 - Follows EFF guidelines
A-plus 3 - Conforms to WCAG standard
A-plus 4 - Conforms to WAI-ARIA standard
A-plus 5 - Complete data exportability
NOTES: FAIL - no API or export functionality - although, users may request a raw DB dump, at the admin's discretion; i don't believe that satisfies this criteria