ERC/Codeberg

This is the GNU Ethical Repository Criteria Evaluations (ERC) evaluation checklist for Codeberg, 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 Codeberg
☑	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: some scripts are not labeled, uses the name "MIT" for expat license.
☑	B1 - No tracking
☐	B2 - Does not encourage unclear licensing NOTES: no diff between GPLv3 and GPLv3-or-later repositories https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00022.html
☐	B2-0 - Explains each of the licensing options NOTES: TODO - new v1.2 criteria (2024) needs review
☐	B2-1 - Explains the importance of license notices NOTES: TODO - new v1.2 criteria (2024) needs review
☑	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: It encourages all free software licenses equally, copyleft and non-copyleft.
☑	A3 - Offers AGPLv3-or-later
☑	A4 - Does not permit non-free licenses
☐	A5 - Does not recommend SaaSS NOTES: TODO
☐	A6 - Does not mention “Open Source” NOTES: No, as they use the neutral term "Free and Open Source Software" and "Open Source", like in their Mission Statement: https://blog.codeberg.org/codebergorg-launched.html
☐	A7 - Clearly endorses software freedom NOTES: No, as it's a mix. In their mission statement they say "Open Source" and "Free and Open Source Software": https://blog.codeberg.org/codebergorg-launched.html. On the other hand, their "What is Codeberg?" page unilaterally says "Free Software": https://docs.codeberg.page/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/
☑	A8 - Refers to GNU/Linux, wherever applicable
☐	A9 - Requires thorough and clear licensing NOTES: No.
☑	A-plus 0 - Registration not required
☐	A-plus 1 - No logging NOTES: The server log files can contain client IP addresses and user agent strings from connecting computers. However, these log files are destroyed automatically within at most seven days.(Source: https://codeberg.org/codeberg/org/src/branch/master/PrivacyPolicy.md )
☑	A-plus 2 - Follows EFF guidelines
☐	A-plus 3 - Conforms to WCAG standard NOTES: TODO
☐	A-plus 4 - Conforms to WAI-ARIA standard NOTES: No. It may not be an Accessible Rich Internet Application, but it's an easy to navigate website for hosting projects.
☐	A-plus 5 - Complete data exportability NOTES: No. It might be possible one day though.(Does git count?)
☐	A-plus 6 - Prefers AGPLv3-or-later projects NOTES: TODO
☐	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.

Evaluation messages:

• https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00005.html
• https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00007.html
• https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00022.html
• https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00056.html