Difference between revisions of "Repository Ethics"
m (reorder list, add Phacility) |
Bill-auger (talk | contribs) (add reminder to convert this to a formal group page) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
GNU also maintains evaluations of [https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html code-hosting sites] by the standards of these criteria. If you'd like to help us evaluate more sites or update existing evaluations as sites improve (or worsen) their scores, join the [https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/repo-criteria-discuss repo-criteria-discuss] mailing list. | GNU also maintains evaluations of [https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html code-hosting sites] by the standards of these criteria. If you'd like to help us evaluate more sites or update existing evaluations as sites improve (or worsen) their scores, join the [https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/repo-criteria-discuss repo-criteria-discuss] mailing list. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''TODO: convert this to a formal group page, analogous to Group:FreedSoftware'' | ||
=List of services that have been suggested for evaluation= | =List of services that have been suggested for evaluation= | ||
| Line 10: | Line 12: | ||
* java-gaming.org. Suggested by Richard Stallman. | * java-gaming.org. Suggested by Richard Stallman. | ||
* Launchpad | * Launchpad | ||
| − | * pagure.io | + | * [[Pagure | pagure.io]] Developers have expressed interest in being evaluated (https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/976) |
| − | * | + | * Bitbucket |
| + | * Google Play Store (this should be very easy to score. It's important because the ethics scores would add weight to the mission of moving developers off Google's proprietary platform onto F-Droid). Social media users need to be able to say to an app creator "why is your app only available in a grade F repository?" | ||
| + | * F-Droid | ||
| + | * [[Notabug | notabug.org]] | ||
| + | * [[Sourcehut | sr.ht]] | ||
| + | * [[Codeberg | codeberg.org]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{featured resource|month=August|year=2016}} | ||
Latest revision as of 21:05, 16 April 2024
GNU and the FSF developed the Ethical Repository Criteria to judge services for hosting parts of the GNU operating system, but we recommend them to everyone that wants to use a service for publicly hosting free source code (and optionally executable programs too). The criteria emphasize protection of privacy, functionality without nonfree JavaScript, compatibility with copyleft licensing and philosophy, and not rejecting any users.
GNU also maintains evaluations of code-hosting sites by the standards of these criteria. If you'd like to help us evaluate more sites or update existing evaluations as sites improve (or worsen) their scores, join the repo-criteria-discuss mailing list.
TODO: convert this to a formal group page, analogous to Group:FreedSoftware
List of services that have been suggested for evaluation
This is a public list -- feel free to add suggestions. Please use the discussion list for commentary on list items.
- GitCafe. Suggested by Richard Stallman. He knows a founder of the service.
- java-gaming.org. Suggested by Richard Stallman.
- Launchpad
- pagure.io Developers have expressed interest in being evaluated (https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/976)
- Bitbucket
- Google Play Store (this should be very easy to score. It's important because the ethics scores would add weight to the mission of moving developers off Google's proprietary platform onto F-Droid). Social media users need to be able to say to an app creator "why is your app only available in a grade F repository?"
- F-Droid
- notabug.org
- sr.ht
- codeberg.org
This page was a featured resource in August 2016.
