GitHub & GitLab Are Awful, What Does The FSF Suggest

What source code repository is ethical well it depends on how you define ethics and if you go by what the FSF and GNU have to say well basically nothing is except what they offer themselves.

==========Support The Channel==========

==========Resources==========

=========Video Platforms==========

==========Social Media==========

==========Credits==========
🎨 Channel Art:
All my art has was created by Supercozman

🎵 Ending music

#github #gitlab #fsf #foss #freesoftware #opensource #linux

DISCLOSURE: Wherever possible I use referral links, which means if you click one of the links in this video or description and make a purchase I may receive a small commission or other compensation.

[unfa]

I died when you read thier requirements for A tier.

They should've added "Oaths lifelong service to FSF and FSF only" to complete the package.

[fleurcode]

Love how they never once mentioned Gitea nor Codeberg

[toast]

GNU would label all my crappy local git repos extremely unethical because they are not "free software" and have no licence and that I have odious work ethics

[chapogon]

This whole list just made me think of making a repo on their service that holds code that con only work on alpine Linux, for whatever reason and then make it so that it also has some static website on it to be used similar to how github pages work. The catch being the javascript of the website is minified previously and it does something dumb like detecting scrolling or something just to move some layouts around

[member]

It's a shame the FSF has derailed so much. They're base principles are great but when you start hearing the full speech it gets worse and worse.

[obake]

"The site's terms of service contain no odious conditions" - Taken at face value, I agree with you that decent terms of service are a must. But they really need to define "odious" - this is the FSF we're talking about here.

I also wouldn't be surprised if just putting GPL3+ in a list isn't good enough. I can imagine them saying something like "There are 4 other licenses above us in the list, therefore you fail." Actually I think I've heard of something like that happening before, though perhaps no with GNU/FSF.

SaaSS - now this is the first time I'm hearing this term. But simply hearing you reading out the expansion of the acronym, my first thought was "Is the public software repository not itself a cloud-based softare replacement?" I mean, in the old days you had to host your own repositories. This seems dumb to me.

[robertdeckard]

I thought there would be more focus on actual ethical problems like github's relation to copilot and it's possible code laundering. Instead, most of the problems are made up.

[auroradraco]

A lot of the A is truly a meme. Yes I mention Linux instead of GNU/Linux so I am unethical. Also I am pretty sure its more ethical to allow all licenses. Don't you limit one's freedom if you don't allow them to choose their license? Sure, using a non free license might limit your freedom, as the FSF says, but not being allowed to use a non free license also limits your freedom

[mkedzier]

"Avoids saying Linux without GNU" - stroking Stallman's ego is an "ethical criterium"?

[excidium_]

Is there any scenario where you could describe the FSF as "reasonable"

[navirc]

4:48, By what I got from it, the C tier your site needs to be able to run with non-free JS at least forcefully disable, while B tier your site needs to not send any non-free JS at all.

[dczoekj]

"Recommends and encourages GPL 3-or-later licensing at least as much as any other kind of licensing" That reminds me of being FREE as in FREEDOM, not being able to recommend whatever licence I want on my website...

[gregwright]

From the FSF's prospective Non-Free Software/Licensing is itself unethical, so I can understand that part.

[TheSolidSnakeOil]

They get petty in the A tier. Must say GNU/Linux (which is just hilarious) and must encourage GPL3,

[csolisr]

I wonder what do these people think about Codeberg and Gitea in general

[TesseractionUK]

I think the FSF's list is perfectly reasonable - it's specifically the set of ethics and standards they hold themselves to without forcing anyone else to do so. My view has always been that the FSF must necessarily remain hardline as a bulwark against the constant undermining of many freedoms taken for granted in the earlier days of computing and particularly the internet.

Individual people can be more lenient, but the FSF must maintain its line in the sand and never let it move.

[higuita]

Notice that this are recommendations, not "rules" that everyone MUST obey. FSF have a view and people that have the same view can follow their recommendations to quickly choose things, instead of trying to research everything. if someone do not agree with it, is their problem... if some site wants to increase their score, they just have to fix listed issues.

the list itself is mostly ok, the gnu/linux issue is stupid, but as you said, this is a old list, it still even list flash!!

One thing that most repositories do wrong is not enforce that everything must have a license and that creates a minefield for other projects or code reuse or even fork. EVERY git repository should force people to choose something, even if it is public domain. Of course FSF prefers GPLv3...GPLc2 do have some corner cases loops, that GPLv3 avoid, so while is still good, it is just in between BSD or MIT and GPLv3. BSD and MIT are good for developers, GPLv3 is good for end-users (and is always the FSF objective). GPLv2, due to the corner case loops, allow to use it, open the code, allow changes, but can block end-users from deploying any change, defeating the spirit of the GPLv2 itself, but not the law. Also notice that FSF in some rare cases, do recommend BSD license, instead of GPL, usually to try to promote some open standard (promot the merge of that standard in close code) instead of some other closed standard, so that makes clear that while FSF may look radical and blind sometimes, some (not all, as any many head organization) of the decisions are well planned.

While javascript is everywhere, i use many times browser without javascript and most do work fine... others do break and sometimes due to stupid features... it would be awesome that javascript was optional... much faster sites, less security problems, less tracking with the negative of loading more full pages/iframes

Finally, if the objective of the repository is open source, seems logic to forbid close source code there, it just cause confusion, so i do understand the FSF idea. You complain about it, but you are seeing this from the code owner perspective ("i'm free to give whatever license to my code"), not end-user perspective... For the end-user, having one site that he can trust that everything is open source is good and helpful... having mixed open and closed licenses, open loop holes for abuses and confusion. And again, no one forbids you to set whatever license you want, just you can't uploaded to a repo that is marked as open source only (that is the final objective of the A rating)... if the repo do not want to limit itself to opensource, B rating is already a perfect target

I think you and many that complain are seeing this from the wrong side, FSF isn't making a law that everyone MUST obey, they are describing what a perfect git repository should be for open source (or better, free software), that is what FSF promote. If you want to use other git repos, use close source license, whatever, you are totally free to do so, the worse that FSF can do is give you a F rating, so more free software oriented people know that there are better alternatives. each person decide how important are each reasons for himself and choose the right service
This is exactly like a consumer association classifying products, not every item in their list is important for everyone, a not "perfect" product may be good enough if the failing items are unimportant for you... on the other hand, if something important is weak in a product, maybe that product is not for you. those classifications are there to help and are from the end user perspective (that can later buy whatever they decide), not from the builder perspective (that again, can still make whatever they want)

[WispOfSoul]

seems to me like most of what GNU does is for boosting GNU's ego...

NOTE: GNU does have some neat projects, but I don't agree with their definition of "ethics"

[DistrosProjects]

GNU project:
Also GNU project: "*but only if it agrees with our ideology"

[xA]

I run my own Git repository server and prefer it this way.