ERC/Notabug

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☐	B0 - Compatible with LibreJS (or equivalent tool) NOTES: one script was rejected - it is perhaps a missing or outdated web-label https://notabug.org/assets/librejs/librejs.html
☑	B1 - No tracking
☑	B2 - Does not encourage unclear licensing
☐	B2-0 - Explains each of the licensing options NOTES: no licensing documentation
☐	B2-1 - Explains the importance of license notices NOTES: no licensing documentation
☑	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 https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-04/msg00006.html
☐	A3 - Offers AGPLv3-or-later NOTES: pending clarification of this criteria https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-04/msg00013.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-04/msg00018.html
☑	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 NOTES: TODO
☐	A-plus 1 - No logging NOTES: TODO
☐	A-plus 2 - Follows EFF guidelines NOTES: TODO
☐	A-plus 3 - Conforms to WCAG standard NOTES: TODO
☐	A-plus 4 - Conforms to WAI-ARIA standard NOTES: TODO
☐	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
☐	A-plus 6 - Prefers AGPLv3-or-later projects NOTES: no licensing documentation
☐	A-plus 7 - Helps or reminds users to put license notices NOTES: No, A+7 is something of an ideal. It would take a lot of work for any forge.

Evaluations:

• 2016-04 - https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2016-04/msg00077.html
• 2021-03 - https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-03/msg00052.html