The GNU ethical repository criteria
The criteria emphasize protection of privacy (including accessibility through the Tor network), functionality without nonfree JavaScript, compatibility with copyleft licensing and philosophy, and equal treatment of all users' traffic."
Posted Oct 16, 2015 21:45 UTC (Fri)
by davidstrauss (guest, #85867)
[Link] (15 responses)
I also can't believe this is still a thing: "Avoids saying 'Linux' without 'GNU' when referring to GNU/Linux." It's turning into some embarrassing Kanye West stuff ("Imma let you finish, but it's GNU/Linux..."). The GNU userland on my system, as I use it, is a trivial part of my computing experience, and the FSF is in no position to be telling me what to call my operating system when I'm mostly using GNOME (nominally GNU but really only officially), Python, the Linux kernel, systemd, Firefox, NetworkManager, Geany, DNF, and OpenSSH as my day-to-day tools.
The work GNU did was critical to the success of modern Linux-based systems, but don't they have more important things to do today than judge repository hosting by such "ethical" concerns as whether they call something GNU/Linux or specifically promote the GPLv3+? That's not ethics; it's a turf war.
Posted Oct 16, 2015 23:02 UTC (Fri)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (4 responses)
D's standard library got it wrong when they didn't follow this advice. They called the version flag "linux", but coded it to glibc-on-Linux. Porting to Android means splitting this out into separate "linux" and "glibc" flags. There are indeed now Android/Linux, musl/Linux (and other embedded flavors), Cray/Linux (and other weird supercomputer setups which use Linux-the-kernel but are also by no means GNU/Linux) which are meaningfully different enough to warrant different labels.
Even so, I still elide it in speech to be just "Linux", but when you're in the realm of the C library, the distinction is important.
Posted Oct 17, 2015 17:41 UTC (Sat)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link] (2 responses)
Criticizing FSF for using "GNU/Linux" in its own writing, as the PP did, is much worse than FSF (politely!) asking other people to use it. FSF can say it any way they like, and can ask others to follow suit, with no inconsistency. Complaining about being asked, and then criticizing FSF for not spontaneously agreeing with one's own bias, is both petty hypocrisy and delusional projection.
To be clear, I am not accusing mathstuf of either of those.
Posted Oct 17, 2015 18:14 UTC (Sat)
by davidstrauss (guest, #85867)
[Link] (1 responses)
Please read relevant materials before commenting. This has nothing to do with the FSF's own choice of terminology.
The FSF's ethical repository hosting scoring method [1] maxes out at a "B" unless you call it "GNU/Linux" and you call the GPLv3+ a "preferred license." Quite a bit of editorial nitpicking for a evaluation that's based on "ethics," right?
> FSF can say it any way they like, and can ask others to follow suit, with no inconsistency. Complaining about being asked, and then criticizing FSF for not spontaneously agreeing with one's own bias, is both petty hypocrisy and delusional projection.
What are you even talking about here? You haven't even read the score system I'm criticizing before calling me "petty" and "delusional."
Posted Oct 18, 2015 1:32 UTC (Sun)
by xtifr (guest, #143)
[Link]
"We developed these criteria to judge services for hosting parts of the GNU operating system..."
In other words, it's exactly what ncm said. The FSF's own <em>internal</em> standards. They do, it's true, invite others to use these criteria, but that's not their primary purpose.
Posted Oct 17, 2015 18:24 UTC (Sat)
by davidstrauss (guest, #85867)
[Link]
My comment is about whether an "ethics" score for a repository hosting service should get capped at a "B" unless you call it "GNU/Linux" and call the GPLv3+ a "preferred license." I'm not trying to get into whether it has technical importance in a place like a C library; it probably does have importance there, but then again that importance is functional, not ethical in nature.
Posted Oct 17, 2015 8:25 UTC (Sat)
by Karellen (subscriber, #67644)
[Link] (7 responses)
So ethics has always been at the root of their work. But it's not necessarily enough to just evaluate the ethics of others, particularly if the ethics of everyone else falls short of your standards. Therefore, the GNU software ecosystem was written, and the various editions of the GPL were written, *entirely as a means to further the ethics they promote*.
The various editions of the GPL have been the best possible manifestations of a license that would encode and promote the ethics behind Free Software, with the GPLv3 being the ethically best license (according to them) conceivable by anyone thus far. The GPLv3 is ethically better than other FLOSS licenses because it ensures the most amount of freedom for *all* the users of software licensed under it, compared to any other license.
If all the FSF did was to evaluate the ethics of others, who would care? Who would drive forward the practical implementation of the FSFs ethics, and why? Writing code and licenses is an essential expression of their ethical drive.
So, no, they literally do not have anything that is more important to do than judge widely-used pieces of software infrastructure (including repository hosting) by ethical concerns.
BTW, if the GNU userland on your system is such a trivial part of your computing experience, maybe you should try deleting GNU libc (including ldd), Bash, GNU binutils and GNU coreutils, and see how well Gnome, Python, Firefox, etc... keep running.
Posted Oct 17, 2015 9:35 UTC (Sat)
by davidstrauss (guest, #85867)
[Link] (5 responses)
You're arguing against a straw man here. I didn't say anything about the FSF's ethical work being unimportant. What I did question is what reasonably falls under that mission versus what seems petty and unrelated.
> The various editions of the GPL have been the best possible manifestations of a license that would encode and promote the ethics behind Free Software, with the GPLv3 being the ethically best license (according to them) conceivable by anyone thus far. The GPLv3 is ethically better than other FLOSS licenses because it ensures the most amount of freedom for *all* the users of software licensed under it, compared to any other license.
If a system of ethics is only (maximally) achievable through following specific texts from the same organization promoting the system, then it is basically a religious system, and the GPL is the scripture. I don't make this claim lightly, nor do I mean it in any derogatory way. However, unless the FSF allows that someone else could write an equivalently ethical license by targeting the same principles, the GPL is being privileged in way that goes beyond mere ethics.
Compare to a typical (secular) system of ethics, which contains principles and tools for analysis, ultimately resulting in judgments about conduct. Anything aligned with the principles and analysis is right; what doesn't align is wrong. While the FSF may have confidence that the GPL creates the conduct best aligned with its ethics, others may disagree. I don't see any reason why the GPL is inherently more ethical to use, even by the FSF's own principles.
> If all the FSF did was to evaluate the ethics of others, who would care?
The OSI did exactly that for quite some time. Debian's ethics allow evaluating any license to see if it meets their rules. Obviously, there are popular license choices that promote those ethics well, like the GPL, but any license can potentially receive approval.
> Who would drive forward the practical implementation of the FSFs ethics, and why? Writing code and licenses is an essential expression of their ethical drive.
And they should! However, it would be wrong for me to say, "Pollution is bad," design a particularly clean car, and then claim that the car I designed is "the best possible manifestation" of fighting pollution. My car may be quite good at it -- even the best by all current measures -- but it still must be evaluated on the actual principles (not the fact that the person who came up with those principles designed it).
> So, no, they literally do not have anything that is more important to do than judge widely-used pieces of software infrastructure (including repository hosting) by ethical concerns.
You're back to the straw man. I didn't say anything about their ethical work being unimportant. I said the privileging of the GPL and the insistence on "GNU/Linux" are not properly under the banner of ethics.
> BTW, if the GNU userland on your system is such a trivial part of your computing experience, maybe you should try deleting GNU libc (including ldd), Bash, GNU binutils and GNU coreutils, and see how well Gnome, Python, Firefox, etc... keep running.
My system would quickly become unusable through the removal of many software projects. None of those other projects have waged a relentless campaign for naming rights of the combined system.
Posted Oct 17, 2015 10:25 UTC (Sat)
by Karellen (subscriber, #67644)
[Link] (4 responses)
Although I am not connected with the FSF, I am reasonably confident that if someone else did write an equivalently-or-more ethical (in the FSFs eyes) license, the FSF would promote it on a par with the GPL. However, until someone actually *does* write such a license, such concerns are somewhat theoretical, and creating the phrasing that would imply this while remaining clear and readable doesn't seem like a very productive use of time. Also note that the GNU project does also maintain a list of licenses they consider "free (ethical) enough".[0]
> While the FSF may have confidence that the GPL creates the conduct best aligned with its ethics, others may disagree.
Naturally, others - including yourself - are free to disagree with the FSFs ethics, or even their interpretation of those ethics. But on the FSFs own terms, promoting the licenses they judge to be the most ethical, is their most important activity.
> I didn't say anything about their ethical work being unimportant.
Um, you said: "don't they have more important things to do today than judge repository hosting by such "ethical" concerns...". I was simply pointing out, borrowing your own wording, that no, they literally do not. Especially given how widely used these non-Free services are becoming, even for hosting Free Software projects.
Posted Oct 17, 2015 19:05 UTC (Sat)
by davidstrauss (guest, #85867)
[Link] (3 responses)
You're misreading what I said, though. I quoted "ethical," meaning I think that I doubted the bona fides of some of the criteria as actually ethical in nature. I even named what I though wasn't germane to ethics, specifically requiring "GNU/Linux" terminology and promoting the GPLv3+. That was not a critique of judging hosts on ethical standards in general, including the many solid criteria that do exist in the FSF's rating scheme.
I've even walked-the-walk: I promoted Launchpad for years after they released their software under the AGPL, and I regularly use the FOSS version of GitLab for other projects.
Bottom line: I think ethical concerns for code hosting are important, but it's hard for me to take the FSF's scoring criteria seriously when they dock points for reasons that seem more about self-promotion than ethical principles.
Posted Oct 18, 2015 3:15 UTC (Sun)
by alkadim (guest, #104623)
[Link] (2 responses)
Where do they say that the are evaluating ethics?
> an "ethics" score for a repository hosting service
To call it "ethics score", or even "'ethics' score", is your own device.
What they have published is a list of criteria against which to judge
They never claim this to be a ruler (or "score", as you say) with which
By the way, the word "ethic" (and declensions) appears exactly once in
It appears twice in the FSF's announcement: in the body of the
> Quite a bit of editorial nitpicking for a evaluation that's based on
By now your writing is starting to strike me as disingenuous. It seems
What's ethical or not is the service.
Furthermore, nowhere do they claim these criteria to be a "canon" or
So, although the initiative is based in ethical principles (as
> This has nothing to do with the FSF's own choice of terminology.
Can you now see that indeed it has?
Even so, you must surely know that for the FSF (and for me, for example)
> I also can't believe this is still a thing: "Avoids saying 'Linux'
Considering what I already said, this, to me, is nothing but frustration
Also, for me, the work GNU (and FSF) *does* *is* critical. It's in
Posted Oct 18, 2015 5:01 UTC (Sun)
by davidstrauss (guest, #85867)
[Link] (1 responses)
In the title: "GNU ethical repository criteria."
> To call it "ethics score", or even "'ethics' score", is your own device.
It assigns a grade letter and potential "extra credit" to any repository hosting site evaluated using it. How is that not a score?
> It appears twice in the FSF's announcement: in the body of the article it, again, very clearly refers to the services in evaluation. The other one is in the title and the usage here may be ambiguous. But you did read the actual criteria listing, right? You quoted from it, so you must have.
Indeed, ethics is about the services being evaluated.
However, though all this back-and-forth, and still no one has explained why a service like GitLab using the term "GNU/Linux" has anything to do with giving them an "A" for the ethics of their software or service. (And, yes, I've read the RMS essay on the necessity of "GNU/Linux." It argues the term's use for advocacy purposes and doesn't mention "ethics" at all.)
> So you cannot be confused about it.
Please drop the sarcasm and ad hominem attacks. They don't really help the discussion.
> It seems to me that you're construing your own narrative, making it pass for the FSF's, then criticising it.
There's no narrative here, just a documented titled to be ethical criteria that includes other FSF goals that have nothing to do with ethics. I don't appreciate an organization implying that certain things are less ethical (by assigning a lower letter grade) for such silly reasons. It really undermines the authority of the document.
> What's ethical or not is the service.
Of course, but I don't see why a service can only earn an "A" by meeting other FSF goals (promoting "GNU/Linux" terminology and promoting the FSF's licenses). It'd be like an HTTPS/TLS testing tool only giving a site an "A" if you use their preferred certificate authority.
> Furthermore, nowhere do they claim these criteria to be a "canon" or "standard". It says very clearly (in both web sites) that they were developed by the GNU project *directed at the GNU project*, and *recommended for anyone else*. How did you miss that?
I didn't miss anything, but enough with the ad hominems.
First, the document includes criteria that would be irrelevant to hosting a GNU project. Why does it matter what licenses a site recommends if every GNU project is already required to use GNU licenses? Clearly, some of the criteria -- like that one -- were written only with consideration of non-GNU projects using the hosting service. So, use by other external projects is more than just an afterthought.
Second, the FSF (and RMS in particular) have routinely portrayed their ethics as canon, at least in the major essays. In "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" [1], Stallman claims that using FSF terminology is essential because, "If you want to stand up for freedom, using a neutral term isn't the way." That's not really leaving much room for difference of opinion. The message is clear (via modus tollens of the quote): if I don't follow the FSF's terminology guidance, I don't stand up for freedom, at least for software. In general, FSF ethics have not shown moral relativism, and I don't see why these criteria would be different.
Finally, saying an ethical system doesn't insist on being canon is, perhaps, the weakest possible defense because it doesn't defend the value or integrity of the system, just that there's the option to defect.
> So, although the initiative is based in ethical principles (as everything the FSF does and was well explained by Karellen) why can't they include their own suggestions, guidelines, directives, opinions? If you ask me, I'll tell you that all the published criteria align very well with the FSF's ethical leitmotiv anyway.
Because it reduces the authority -- and thus usefulness -- of the document. I *want* criteria like these to point to, but I don't feel like some of the requirements are actually germane to software freedom. Nor can I create my own, modified version without those items, given the CC-BY-ND license on it.
When I read the last steps (to achieve an "A"), and they require using "GNU/Linux" and promoting the GPLv3+, I feel like I'm reading a recipe from Kraft that tells me the final step is to add Velveeta(R) cheese. I feel sold-to. We live in a cynical world, and selling a fresh helping of your own brand as part of a document cheapens the entire document.
Years ago, I worked with SETI to release their signal-analysis software under a free software license. I argued for them to not put it on GitHub because that service is proprietary. I don't feel like the FSF's full set of criteria would have helped me make the case better. And now -- here on LWN -- I'm trying to explain why.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-poin...
Posted Oct 19, 2015 3:17 UTC (Mon)
by alkadim (guest, #104623)
[Link]
Well, my reading does not suggest at all that they are "evaluating ethics",
> > To call it "ethics score", or even "'ethics' score", is your own device.
It's a score, alright, but you're tying score to "ethics". I can't see how you
> There's no narrative here, just a documented titled to be ethical criteria...
Well, you see, we disagree then. You again tie ethics to the criteria and
> ...still no one has explained why a service like GitLab using the term
It's their criteria, for their projects. I see no problem. And you already
> [...]
I consider this inapplicable, this is not an ethical system.
In general, I get the impression that you want take these criteria in the
That's all I have to say. Cheers.
Posted Oct 22, 2015 17:50 UTC (Thu)
by eternaleye (guest, #67051)
[Link]
> GNU libc (including ldd)
Musl.
> Bash
ZSH, Fish, pdksh.
> GNU binutils
LLD is progressing quite nicely.
> and GNU coreutils
Toybox, among others. There's even a project to reimplement coreutils with all the GNU extensions in Rust, under the "uutils" project.
> and see how well Gnome, Python, Firefox, etc... keep running.
Not all that badly.
Posted Oct 17, 2015 12:08 UTC (Sat)
by Zack (guest, #37335)
[Link] (1 responses)
-The GNU operating system is a Free Software operating system.
Maybe that distinction isn't that important to you, but it might be important to others, like for example those working on GNU.
Maybe GNU is not important enough for you to call it by its name, propagating the values for which it stands. But why shouldn't the people for whom that does matter elucidate their concerns and ask others to not misrepresent them in that matter?
Posted Oct 25, 2015 6:23 UTC (Sun)
by malor (guest, #2973)
[Link]
Posted Oct 16, 2015 22:16 UTC (Fri)
by nomeata (subscriber, #16315)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 17, 2015 14:44 UTC (Sat)
by attomir (guest, #101565)
[Link]
Posted Oct 17, 2015 1:33 UTC (Sat)
by david.a.wheeler (subscriber, #72896)
[Link] (3 responses)
I'm surprised that they don't require "Server code released as free software." until an "A" (Excellent).
So, I'm curious: how do sites like GitHub and SourceForge (Allura) fare? I wouldn't be surprised if GitHub ranked close to a "C" on this scale; GitHub does talk about "GPL 2 or 3" instead of just 3. I don't know if SourceForge does well on this (I don't know how well they meet the Javascript requirements), but since its code is FLOSS, that could be added easily.
Posted Oct 17, 2015 6:24 UTC (Sat)
by biergaizi (guest, #92498)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 18, 2015 3:19 UTC (Sun)
by idupree (guest, #71169)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 19, 2015 20:53 UTC (Mon)
by jwarnica (subscriber, #27492)
[Link]
Posted Oct 19, 2015 21:14 UTC (Mon)
by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 20, 2015 14:34 UTC (Tue)
by branden (guest, #7029)
[Link]
The GNU ethical repository criteria
The GNU ethical repository criteria
The GNU ethical repository criteria
The GNU ethical repository criteria
The GNU ethical repository criteria
The GNU ethical repository criteria
The GNU ethical repository criteria
The GNU ethical repository criteria
>
> So ethics has always been at the root of their work. But it's not necessarily enough to just evaluate the ethics of others, particularly if the ethics of everyone else falls short of your standards. Therefore, the GNU software ecosystem was written, and the various editions of the GPL were written, *entirely as a means to further the ethics they promote*.
The GNU ethical repository criteria
The GNU ethical repository criteria
The GNU ethical repository criteria
code-hosting services. Services which meet such criteria are considered
ethical (by the FSF, the GNU project, and anyone else agreeing).
to measure how much or less ethical a service is.
the actual list of criteria (at gnu.org), in the title: "GNU ethical
repository criteria". Just how do you manage to jump to "ethics score"?
article it, again, very clearly refers to the services in evaluation.
The other one is in the title and the usage here may be ambiguous. But
you did read the actual criteria listing, right? You quoted from it, so
you must have. So you cannot be confused about it.
> "ethics," right?
to me that you're construing your own narrative, making it pass for
the FSF's, then criticising it.
"standard". It says very clearly (in both web sites) that they were
developed by the GNU project *directed at the GNU project*, and
*recommended for anyone else*. How did you miss that?
everything the FSF does and was well explained by Karellen) why can't
they include their own suggestions, guidelines, directives, opinions?
If you ask me, I'll tell you that all the published criteria align very
well with the FSF's ethical leitmotiv anyway.
it's not /simply/ terminology. (The manner in which "open source" is so
easily co-opted tells me that I should be careful with the words I use
because I care about what I mean.)
> without 'GNU' when referring to GNU/Linux." It's turning into some...
>
> The work GNU did was critical to the success of modern Linux-based
> systems, but don't they have more important things to do today than
> judge repository hosting by such "ethical" concerns...
discharge (you know what I mean). You seem very annoyed at the FSF
continuing to pursue what the FSF always has.
present tense.
The GNU ethical repository criteria
>
> What they have published is a list of criteria against which to judge code-hosting services. Services which meet such criteria are considered ethical (by the FSF, the GNU project, and anyone else agreeing).
>
> They never claim this to be a ruler (or "score", as you say) with which to measure how much or less ethical a service is.
> [...]
> By now your writing is starting to strike me as disingenuous.
The GNU ethical repository criteria
>
> In the title: "GNU ethical repository criteria."
they are evaluating services ("ethical repository"). As a result of the
evaluation the service might be considered ethical, or not. It's a boolean
thing.
> >
> > ...
>
> It assigns a grade letter and potential "extra credit" to any repository
> hosting site evaluated using it. How is that not a score?
arrive at that. The way I read it, the quality of a service being ethical is
boolean, the gradient (score or rating) is not ethics, it's, say, preference.
The only point at which that gradient necessarily crosses "ethics" is in the
Acceptable grade. If a service scores at least Acceptable, then it's ethical.
And that's all.
consider them a ruler for ethics. This is not what I understand from the text.
> "GNU/Linux" has anything to do with giving them an "A"...
>
> I don't see why a service can only earn an "A" by meeting other FSF goals
> (promoting "GNU/Linux" terminology and promoting the FSF's licenses).
>
> [...]
>
> > ...why can't they include their own suggestions, guidelines, directives,
> > opinions?
>
> Because it reduces the authority -- and thus usefulness -- of the document.
gave a fair reason: advocacy.
>
> Finally, saying an ethical system doesn't insist on being canon is...
abstract, as a sort of philosophical treatise (excuse the perhaps stretched
analogy). I see them as a tool, a practical device to address a real ethical
concern.
The GNU ethical repository criteria
The GNU ethical repository criteria
-The Linux operating system, is a succesful, sophisticated, and open source UNIX clone.
The GNU ethical repository criteria
The GNU ethical repository criteria
The GNU ethical repository criteria
GitHub? SourceForge (Allura)?
GitHub? SourceForge (Allura)?
GitHub? SourceForge (Allura)?
GitHub? SourceForge (Allura)?
The GNU ethical repository criteria
The GNU ethical repository criteria