Re: [directory-discuss] Unable to search for GPL packages

[Greg Rundlett (freephile)]

I really appreciate all your feedback and helpful info about these projects. I will update my wiki page accordingly (and I welcome contributors). You are correct that by 'free' v. 'non-free' I really meant Copyleft vs. not copyleft.  

The way I see it, every project I've ever known and loved that was not copyleft has been bought out. So in essence, it's either Copyleft, or nothing. I want to setup a code hosting and development platform for eQuality-Tech and right now I have my code on GitHub. l'm not going to keep it there, and I'm not going to repeat the same mistake by jumping to GitLab; or any project that is not Copyleft.

Thanks,

Greg

Greg Rundlett

https://eQuality-Tech.com

https://freephile.org

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 6:03 PM, bill-auger <address@hidden> wrote:

a few things i should note about your wiki page

1. why do you have gitea and notabug listed under non-free?

Phabricator also listed under non-free notes that it is "Apache licensed, not
GPL" - so it seems that your definition of non-free is: "anything that is not
GPL licensed" - the FSF would not agree with that distinction - permissive
licenses are considered free - the distinction with the GPL is that they are not
copyleft - if that is the distinction you really want to highlight, then the
headers should be "Copyleft" vs "Permissive" rather than "Free" vs "NonFree"

also it is not clear why both gitea and notabug would appear on the same list -
gitea is a self-hosted option and notabug is a public host - that is an
important distinction to make - the code running notabug is gogs which is
extremely similar to gitea - that particular distinction is hardly worth making
- gitea is a fork of gogs and the vast majority of the code-base is in common
between them - the main distinction between the two is in the project management
philosophy - for that reason, the entry for "gitea" may as well be for both
"gitea/gogs" because they are nearly identical from the user perspective
-presenting them as such would then make it obvious that gitea/gogs is listed
twice with no meaningful distinction noted as to why



2. i notice that some entries have quite good explanation of features while
other say very little - for example, the pagure description probably describes
every other one that page accurately aside from it is "written in Python"
pagure has some unique feature that are attractive to downstreams that i would
emphasize such as:
  * customizations can be done out of tree which makes upgrading fairly painless
  * entire projects can be easily exported and imported from one instance to
another, all by using only git, including issues, pull requests, and their
comments because they are stored as git repos - this means for example one could
host their project on pagure.io for some time and then migrate everything to
their own instance once they decide to self-host - the project can even be
mirrored on multiple servers with everything perpetually synchronized by
external cron tasks or pagure hooks



3. the URL to the evaluation comparison spreadsheet by peers should not be used
formally because it exists only as a public etherpad which is still world
writable - it could disappear or be vandalized at any time - i have attached a
pristine copy to this message - if you would like to present that information,
please host this static file on your server rather than the etherpad link -
also, note that this was done almost 2 years ago - some things have changed -
for one, we were not aware of gitea at the time, i think it did not exist yet;
but gitea would now have the distinction of being the only one that is fully
librejs compatible - otherwise, most everything else about gogs would be
applicable to gitea - if gitea had been considered at the time, it probably
would be displayed as a single column: "gogs/gitea"