2 ms·

> There are more severe problems than just "is the server free software". Nonsense. They have 2 reasons for it getting an F rating. > 1. Important site func

> There are more severe problems than just "is the server free software". Nonsense. They have 2 reasons for it getting an F rating. > 1. Important site functionality does not work without running nonfree JavaScript. (C0) Contradicts what you say. > 2. Specific information may not be available in all countries Both are abiding by laws restricting access to that content. If you have an issue with that perhaps talk to the relevant governments. > see roskomnadzor[1] This was blocked by the Russian .gov, nothing to do with GitHub > and export controls[2] for more details. They are a US company hosted with a US provider complying with US laws on exporting controlled data. So to counter your point one issue is because they're using non free software, one reason is out of their control, and the other is following the law of the land they are doing business in. If this is a fail in the FSF then that's fine, claiming they have "more severe problems than not running free software" is disingenuous. 1. https://github.com/github/roskomnadzor/blob/master/2014-10-21-roskomnadzor.md https://github.com/github/roskomnadzor/blob/master/2014-10-2... 2. https://help.github.com/articles/github-and-export-controls/ https://help.github.com/articles/github-and-export-controls/

cyphar 9y ago
> > 1. Important site functionality does not work without running nonfree JavaScript. (C0) > Contradicts what you say. ... no it doesn't. GitHub has server code and has JavaScript code that is sent to the client for the client to execute on the user's machine. This requirement is referring to the client code not the server code. The former is more of a matter of user freedom than the latter. More importantly this requirement doesn't even require GitHub to make their JavaScript free, they just have to make their site work with JavaScript disabled. I'm not sure how you could possibly read the requirement as saying "all server code that GitHub has must be free software"... > Both are abiding by laws restricting access to that content. If you have an issue with that perhaps talk to the relevant governments. GitLab doesn't get a ding for this requirement, so clearly this statement may be true but it doesn't seem like you are required to act the way GitHub does by law. > So to counter your point one issue is because they're using non free software, one reason is out of their control They have written proprietary software and sell it. I admit that it's hard to fix this problem if you already have proprietary code (contractors retain copyright in some cases), but pretending like they were completely at the mercy of someone else is ridiculous.
mikegerwitz 9y ago
> Both are abiding by laws restricting access to that content. If you have an issue with that perhaps talk to the relevant governments. In the case of Roskomnadzor, GitHub is not under the jurisdiction of the Russian government---they made a choice to comply. They could have instead chosen to stand up to the Russian government, which would surely upset its citizens and the world and possibly lead to change. Possibly not. It's certainly a gamble. rms drew a hard line on this. When I asked him about Roskomnadzor specifically, he was not moved. Quite the opposite, in fact. I forget what he said about the export controls; I'll have to look at my mail archives tonight. But if they are complying with US law, and they have no choice, I don't think they'd be penalized in these criteria.

cyphar 9y ago

> > 1. Important site functionality does not work without running nonfree JavaScript. (C0) > Contradicts what you say. ... no it doesn't. GitHub has server code and has JavaScript code that is sent to the client for the client to execute on the user's machine. This requirement is referring to the client code not the server code. The former is more of a matter of user freedom than the latter. More importantly this requirement doesn't even require GitHub to make their JavaScript free, they just have to make their site work with JavaScript disabled. I'm not sure how you could possibly read the requirement as saying "all server code that GitHub has must be free software"... > Both are abiding by laws restricting access to that content. If you have an issue with that perhaps talk to the relevant governments. GitLab doesn't get a ding for this requirement, so clearly this statement may be true but it doesn't seem like you are required to act the way GitHub does by law. > So to counter your point one issue is because they're using non free software, one reason is out of their control They have written proprietary software and sell it. I admit that it's hard to fix this problem if you already have proprietary code (contractors retain copyright in some cases), but pretending like they were completely at the mercy of someone else is ridiculous.

mikegerwitz 9y ago

> Both are abiding by laws restricting access to that content. If you have an issue with that perhaps talk to the relevant governments. In the case of Roskomnadzor, GitHub is not under the jurisdiction of the Russian government---they made a choice to comply. They could have instead chosen to stand up to the Russian government, which would surely upset its citizens and the world and possibly lead to change. Possibly not. It's certainly a gamble. rms drew a hard line on this. When I asked him about Roskomnadzor specifically, he was not moved. Quite the opposite, in fact. I forget what he said about the export controls; I'll have to look at my mail archives tonight. But if they are complying with US law, and they have no choice, I don't think they'd be penalized in these criteria.