Re: Savannah vs. Gitlab

[ChanMaxthon]

Those "minified" JavaScript can be considered a compiled form as there is no 
mortal that can properly understand it without machine assistance (and yes 
ioccc folks are deities here.) If we trace back to whatever it originally is it 
is very likely to be open source.

And Svetlana, check if your version of LibreJS is up to date. Incompatibilities 
usually means bugs, and HTML WG move very fast. And if you really don't want to 
touch the GitHub page you can ask some trusted contributor to create an account 
for you and add your SSH key to the profile, and you can start contributing 
using your local copy of open source softwares Git and OpenSSH.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 4, 2015, at 17:12, Matt Rice <ratmice@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Svetlana A. Tkachenko
> <svetlana@members.fsf.org> wrote:
>>> Gitlab is OPEN SOURCE. :)  It is not proprietary.
>> 
>> 1) It does not label its frontend's JavaScript with the licenses (C0.0).
>> 2) Gitlab links to about.gitlab.com which sells a proprietary product.
>> The free GitLab version is bait-and-switch for their so-called
>> enterprise version which is proprietary software.
>> 3) GitLab does not encourage submissions which are freely licensed (C5).
> 
> about 1, this blog post discusses the freeing of the javascript (even
> from the non-free version of the software) amongst other things...
> 
> https://about.gitlab.com/2015/05/20/gitlab-gitorious-free-software/
> 
> but it strikes me that you aren't actually saying that the javascript
> isn't of an acceptable license, but that it is not labeled as being of
> an acceptable license?
> 
> I find the argument odd given that some javascript does not bother
> emitting whitespace, let alone comments, thus the free javascript
> might not even be the preferred source form, what I gathered they made
> the coffee script which generates the javascript free software as
> well...  gcc does not preserve licensing terms either in the binaries
> it produces.  At least if we want it to produce javascript containing
> licensing terms we should be able to modify it to do so.
> 
> not sure what your (C?) references are supposed to refer to?
> anyhow the quote from RMS on the above link sums up my opinion on the 
> matter...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep