Difference between revisions of "Repository Ethics"
m (reorder list, add Phacility) |
(bitbucket mentioned in discussions but not in list) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* pagure.io. They expressed interest in being evaluated on this ticket public: https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/976. | * pagure.io. They expressed interest in being evaluated on this ticket public: https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/976. | ||
* Phacility | * Phacility | ||
| + | * Bitbucket | ||
Revision as of 02:29, 5 February 2017
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.
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. They expressed interest in being evaluated on this ticket public: https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/976.
- Phacility
- Bitbucket
