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 辉煌棋牌网址多少 山西11选5任选五技巧 炒股的技巧 海南飞鱼网上购买 舟山飞鱼官网 18年看新闻赚钱软件 3d专家预测组三组六方法 甘肃十一选五遗漏 波克棋牌旧版下载 众发娱乐镇得螚赚钱吗 双色球彩票大奖排行 山东11选5遗漏查询 中石油股票行情 多乐彩票网站 河北十一选五开奖公布 股票分析方法中进行技术分析