English [en]   fran?ais [fr]  

GNU Ethical Repository Criteria Evaluations

We maintain this evaluation report presenting the compliance level of repository services with the GNU ethical repository criteria. There are some criteria that we can't possibly verify, in which case we accept the site maintainer's word on the matter. This evaluation is done by volunteers coordinated by the Free Software Foundation, and you are welcome to contribute.

Site Grade Date Criteria Version
GNU Savannah A 2015-10-01 1.1
GitLab C 2015-11-05 1.1
GitHub F 2016-04-13 1.1
SourceForge F 2015-10-07 1.1

GNU Savannah — A

Savannah has already achieved the highest grade for ethical hosting; these are the issues that would need to be addressed for it to earn extra credit. If you would like to volunteer to help make some of these changes, please join the Savannah team.

GitLab — C

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

GitHub — F

Things that prevent GitHub from moving up to the next grade, C:

The worst thing that GitHub does is to encourage bad licensing practice: failure to include a license, failure to state the license on each source file, and failure to specify “version 3 or later” when using the GNU GPL. (B2)

Here are additional reasons to avoid GitHub.

SourceForge — F

Things that prevent SourceForge from moving up to the next grade, C:


 [FSF logo] “The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom. We defend the rights of all software users.”


招财蟾蜍APP 掌上棋牌app下载 股票行情今天查询 杠杆炒股配资 黑龙江体彩6十1开奖查询 五分十一选五APP最新版下载 快乐10分开奖查询 成都银泉酒店小姐双飞 财惠赚配资 湖北11选5遗漏一 11选5江苏一定牛 沈阳站街女绿化带 痉挛很剧烈的几部av 亿赢配资 宝石探秘财富加倍 欧美av性交影片 黑龙江p62