Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
New issue look: Off

Complete as many criterion listed by the GNU Ethical Repository Criteria's "A" grade as is reasonable

    • Closed (moved) Issue created by username-removed-386624 @connorshea

    To make GitLab pass the "B"-level criteria are handled in #15677 (moved) and #15621 (moved).

    The following are the "A"-level criteria listed by the GNU Ethical Repository Criteria:

    • All important site functions work correctly (though may not look as nice) when the user disables execution of JavaScript and other code sent by the site. (A0)
    • Server code released as free software. (A1)
    • Encourages use of GPL 3-or-later as preferred option. (A2)
    • Offers use of AGPL 3-or-later as an option. (A3)
    • Does not permit nonfree licenses (or lack of license) for works for practical use. (A4)
    • Does not recommend services that are SaaSS. (A5)
    • Says “free software,” not “open source.” (A6)
    • Clearly endorses the Free Software Movement's ideas of freedom. (A7)
    • Avoids saying “Linux” without “GNU” when referring to GNU/Linux. (A8)

    And here's our status/my comments and opinions on them:

    • A0: Probably not passing this one, might be worth thinking about, but unfortunately probably won't happen. I was apparently wrong about this one, and much of the site's main functionality does indeed work without JavaScript enabled!
    • A1: I think we've done this already? Upon further clarification, without a free software license for EE (the version running on GitLab.com), this is not considered completed.
    • A2: Depends on if they consider what we've done/will do to reach the B grade as "encourages use of GPL 3+".
    • A3: We offer AGPL, but not specific versions (e.g. 3-or-later), we should definitely aim to do this one.
    • A4: Not entirely clear, but I don't think this one is really reasonable?
    • A5: Depending on the exact definition of a SaaSS (Service as a Software Substitute), we might be doing this one already?
    • A6: Maybe? Probably not though.
    • A7: Not sure exactly what is meant by this, but I think we do?
    • A8: Not going to do this one, I don't think Stallman has even been doing this lately. This may be considered, although I'm still personally opposed. Stallman does indeed still use GNU/Linux, I must be misremembering something else.

    Let me reiterate, the above are my opinions and comments, and mine alone. They are not necessarily representative of the views of GitLab as a company.

    So here are the ones I think we can reasonably complete, pending exact clarification from the FSF, in order of perceived "easiness":

    • All important site functions work correctly (though may not look as nice) when the user disables execution of JavaScript and other code sent by the site. (A0)
    • Encourages use of GPL 3-or-later as preferred option. (A2)
    • Offers use of AGPL 3-or-later as an option. (A3)
    • Clearly endorses the Free Software Movement's ideas of freedom. (A7)
    • Does not recommend services that are SaaSS. (A5)

    5/9 ain't bad.

    cc: @haynes @mikegerwitz @rdavila

    1 of 5 checklist items completed

    Designs

    Child items 0

    • No child items are currently open.

    Activity

    • username-removed-386624
      username-removed-386624 @connorshea ·
      Author Developer

      Also, is the GNU Ethical Repository Criteria worth having its own label to organize its relevant issues?

    • username-removed-25949
      username-removed-25949 @haynes ·
      Maintainer

      A8: Not going to do this one, I don't think Stallman has even been doing this lately.

      @connorshea why not? This is simply a search and replace.
      We only have 33 files in gitlab-ce that contain the word Linux and some of them already use GNU/Linux
      It's easy to do, so I think we should do it 😃

    • username-removed-386624
      username-removed-386624 @connorshea ·
      Author Developer

      @haynes I just disagree with the importance of that in regards to "ethics", it has nothing to do with the ethics of the product. Plus, I see no reason confuse new users who may have heard of Linux but not GNU/Linux.

      I think it'd be worth petitioning on the mailing list for that to be removed. It hurts the legitimacy of the criteria as a whole.

      But that's just, like, my opinion man.

    • username-removed-25949
      username-removed-25949 @haynes ·
      Maintainer

      @connorshea I don't have a strong opinion about this.
      If you want to, feel free to ask them to remove the criteria.
      But I think if they say no, we should fulfill the requirements for that point.

    • Grzegorz Bizon
      Grzegorz Bizon @grzesiek ·
      Maintainer

      I don't think we should favor GPL-3 license. Even Linux kernel does not have it.

    • username-removed-357829
      username-removed-357829 @mimi89999 ·

      It is very important to use the term GNU/Linux. @connorshea AFAIK Stallman is always saying GNU/Linux.

    • username-removed-130668
      username-removed-130668 @mikegerwitz ·

      @connorshea Remember, these are the criteria for the hosting of GNU projects. So while we do certainly hope that others will meet these criteria, there will be things that the GNU Project finds to be important. Meeting as many criteria as possible, even if it doesn't bump a letter grade, does show a strong commitment to users' freedoms, and still demands respect.

      In the case of GNU/Linux, the distinction is fundamentally important: using the term "Linux" to describe the entire operating system isn't correct, avoids giving GNU credit, and consequently avoids discussion of software freedom; if users are told about GNU, then they'd ask about it, research it, and discover why the fully free Unix replacement was created to begin with, and why it is important.

      rms has never been willing to compromise on the terminology. A good example of that GNU/kWindows.

      @grzesiek:

      I don't think we should favor GPL-3 license. Even Linux kernel does not have it.

      You'll have to elaborate on your opinions; that's hardly rationale. Linux doesn't use it because of fundamental disagreements between Torvalds and the goals of the GPLv3; they're his personal opinion that not everybody shares.

      With regards to the criteria comments from @connorshea:

      • A0 is passing as of when I initially did the GitLab review many months back: #2485 (closed).
      • A1 is not quite satisfied. Yes, GitLab CE is free software, but gitlab.com uses GitLab EE, and while its code is publicly available, it's not fully free.
      • A2 will await Richard's response on the mailing list.
      • A4 probably doesn't make sense for GitLab, considering its audience; it does make sense for a site like GNU Savannah.
      • A5 also won't be able to be satisfied by GitLab; GitLab CI is SaaSS.
      • A7---I can't say; I haven't evaluated that. A6 would be a prerequisite to this (IMO), and this GitLab instance would have to actually talk about freedom. I'd also have to ask rms if he considers about.gitlab.com to be separate from gitlab.com's hosted instance.
      • A8 was discussed above.

      Thanks for taking the time on this; I'm very encouraged, and I'm happy with any progress made. Again: since these criteria are for hosting of GNU projects, they're a bit more strict and won't be met by most services. But you'll certainly get high praise from the free software community for what is met, and I've personally given praise for what has been done so far.

      Happy hacking!

    • username-removed-386624
      username-removed-386624 @connorshea ·
      Author Developer

      @mikegerwitz Regarding A5 (SaaSS), the software behind GitLab CI is free and open source (see https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ci-multi-runner) and it is possible to run on your local machine/server connected to GitLab.com (see http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/ci/runners/README.html). Does the service being optional and replaceable by a local copy of the software make it not-SaaSS?

      Thank you for meeting us part way on this! Speaking for myself, I may not agree with every idea the FSF/GNU Project promotes, but I do see its necessity and agree with its overarching ideals. I'm happy to contribute in any way I can :)

      Edited by username-removed-386624
    • username-removed-386624
      username-removed-386624 @connorshea ·
      Author Developer

      @mikegerwitz One other thing, with regards to A6 ("free software"), does the FSF endorse the use of "free and open source software (FOSS)", or is only "free software" acceptable?

    • username-removed-130668
      username-removed-130668 @mikegerwitz ·

      @connorshea:

      Does the service being optional and replaceable by a local copy of the software make it not-SaaSS?

      The copy that the user has control over would not be SaaSS---and that's great. But the problem is that GitLab also provides its own servers, which does make it SaaSS.

      You're not going to be able to get around that, because it's a fundamental service that GitLab offers. This is one of those things where GitLab is doing something very good---allowing people to run their own service so that they don't need to use GitLab's SaaSS---while at the same time providing SaaSS, which the GNU project doesn't agree with.

      See my message below.

      does the FSF endorse the use of "free and open source software (FOSS)", or is only "free software" acceptable?

      If middle ground is needed, FLOSS is better than FOSS. But it's not endorsed---we reject the term "open source" completely because it was created for the sole purpose of avoiding the topic of freedom to sell the benefits of the development methodology to businesses.

      With regards to meeting the criterion, and with regards to GitLab CI and allowing users to host their own instances rather than using GitLab's: could you bring those up on the repo-criteria-discuss@gnu.org mailing list? I don't know the answer to the former, and I don't know if Richard would be willing to compromise any on the latter, given what you described.

      but I do see its necessity and agree with its overarching ideals. I'm happy to contribute in any way I can :)

      Thanks! I (and others) really appreciate it.

    • Grzegorz Bizon
      Grzegorz Bizon @grzesiek ·
      Maintainer

      @mikegerwitz My comment reflects merely my personal opinion on GPL license. It is not bad license, but I'm a huge free software enthusiast and license that creates constraints and prevents people from using software under some certain conditions sometimes does not feel like completely free license for me. What do you think?

      This was also rationale for not adopting this license by Linux:

      Linux and Freedom

      Another of the planks of Linux's success rests squarely on the breadth and diversity of its community of contributors and users, without whom we wouldn't have the steady stream of innovation which drives our movement forward. However, an essential element of this is the fact that individuals with disparate (and sometimes even competing) objectives can still march together a considerable distance to their mutual benefit. This synergy of effort, while not compromising dissimilar aims, is one of the reasons Linux manages to harness the efforts of not only motivated developers but also corporate and commercial interests. This in turn is brought about by a peculiar freedom enshrined in the developer contract as represented by GPLv2, namely the freedom from binding the end use of the project. Without this freedom, it would be much more difficult to satisfy the objectives of the contributors, since those objectives often have expression in terms of the end use to which they wish to put the particular project. Therefore, in order to maintain the essential development synergy and consequent innovation stream it provides to Linux, we could not countenance any change to the GPL which would jeopardise this fundamental freedom.

      Edited by Grzegorz Bizon
    • username-removed-386624 Reassigned to @connorshea

      Reassigned to @connorshea

    • username-removed-25949
      username-removed-25949 @haynes ·
      Maintainer

      /cc @mattl fyi :)

    • username-removed-386624 Marked the task All important site functions work correctly (though may not look as nice) when the user disables execution of JavaScript and other code sent by the site. (A0) as completed

      Marked the task All important site functions work correctly (though may not look as nice) when the user disables execution of JavaScript and other code sent by the site. (A0) as completed

    • username-removed-386624 Added meta label

      Added meta label

    • username-removed-386624 Assignee removed

      Assignee removed

    • Reb
      Reb @xyzzy ·
      Contributor

      I note that GitLab got a "C" grade yet all I see here is a discussion of the "A" criteria. Have we already satisfied all of the level "B" items? If not, why are they not listed here. If so, why does the FSF not list us as a "B"?

      Also, I find no distinction here (or on the FSF site for that matter) on whether the criteria and label appy to GitLab.com or the GitLab products (CE / EE - separately or collectively).

      Edited by Reb
    • username-removed-216640
      username-removed-216640 @aharris88 ·

      @xyzzy The "B" criteria is mentioned here: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/15621

      Edited by username-removed-216640
    • username-removed-626804
      username-removed-626804 @pedroms ·
      Developer

      Mentioned in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14357010

      From https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.en.html:

      Things that prevent GitLab from moving up to the next grade, B:

      • All JavaScript code served to the client is free, but does not work with LibreJS enabled. (B0)
      • Encourages bad licensing practice, including no license; failure to state the license on each source file; and failure to say which GPL versions apply. (B2)
    • Gabriel Mazetto
      Gabriel Mazetto @brodock ·
      Maintainer

      as we moved from the asset pipeline, to comply with LibreJS we need something to plug into webpack.

    • Toon Claes mentioned in issue #15621 (moved)

      mentioned in issue #15621 (moved)

    • Felipe Artur moved to gitlab#4774

      moved to gitlab#4774

    • Felipe Artur
      Felipe Artur @felipe_artur ·
      Maintainer

      Hey! 👋

      GitLab is moving all development for both GitLab Community Edition and Enterprise Edition into a single codebase. The current gitlab-ce repository will become a read-only mirror, without any proprietary code. All development is moved to the current gitlab-ee repository, which we will rename to just gitlab in the coming weeks. As part of this migration, issues will be moved to the current gitlab-ee project.

      If you have any questions about all of this, please ask them in our dedicated FAQ issue.

      https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/13855

      You can also find more information here:

      Frequently Asked Questions

      For an up to date list of questions and answers, please take a look at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/13855

      What will we do with the repository names?

      https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/ will become https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab, and https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce will become https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss.

      Why rename gitlab-ce to gitlab-foss?

      Using "gitlab" and "gitlab-ce" would be confusing, so we decided to rename gitlab-ce to gitlab-foss to make the purpose of this FOSS repository more clear

      I created a merge requests for CE, and this got closed. What do I need to do?

      You will need to create a merge request at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/. This link will eventually redirect to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab.

      How does the licensing work in this new setup?

      Everything in the ee/ directory is proprietary. Everything else is free and open source software. If your merge request does not change anything in the ee/ directory, the process of contributing changes is the same as when using the gitlab-ce repository.

      Will you accept merge requests on the gitlab-ce/gitlab-foss project after it has been renamed?

      No. Merge requests submitted to this project will be closed automatically.

      Will I still be able to view old issues and merge requests in gitlab-ce/gitlab-foss?

      Yes.

      How will this affect users of GitLab CE using Omnibus?

      No changes will be necessary, as the packages built remain the same.

      How will this affect users of GitLab CE that build from source?

      Once the project has been renamed, you will need to change your Git remotes to use this new URL. GitLab will take care of redirecting Git operations so there is no hard deadline, but we recommend doing this as soon as the projects have been renamed.

      Where can I see a timeline of the remaining steps?

      https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/13304

      Will community contributions submitted to the new "gitlab" repository be available in the new gitlab-foss repository?

      Yes, these changes will be synced to gitlab-foss automatically, several times per day.

    • Felipe Artur locked this issue

      locked this issue

    Please register or sign in to reply