[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Please, no GitHub
From: |
Maxthon Chan |
Subject: |
Re: Please, no GitHub |
Date: |
Sat, 12 Dec 2015 17:32:18 +0800 |
Richard:
> On Dec 12, 2015, at 13:00, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>> As far as I can see, the existance of the Github JSON API [1] allows it
>> to meet all of the criteria in section C of that document, and hence be
>> an acceptable host.
>
> I think you've misunderstood the meaning of some conditionss.
>
> <li id="C0"><p>All important site functionality that’s enabled for use
> with that package works correctly (though it need not look
> as nice) in free browsers, including
> <a href="/software/gnuzilla/">IceCat</a>,
> without running any nonfree software sent by the
> site. <strong>(C0)</strong></p>
>
> means that if you visit the site normally, with nonfree JS code blocked,
> the site works normally.
>
> I think you are talking about something quite different, such as whether
> you could write some other interface that would work. Maybe you could,
> but that is not what C0 is about.
They exposed **every single** site functionality through the API (in fact, the
Web interface itself uses the API to do its business, so it is safe to say that
https://github.com/ is no more than one of the several available front-ends for
https://api.github.com/) so https://api.github.com/ is satisfying this criteria.
> <li id="C5"><p>Recommends and encourages GPL 3-or-later licensing at
> least as much as any other kind of licensing.
> <strong>(C5)</strong></p></li>
>
> Since you talk about offering a "choice", I think you may have
> misinterpreted "Recommends and encourages" as "permits”.
Their website and API are license-blind. Github have a “choose a license”
website that put GPL at the same level of recommendation as Apache 2.0 and
MIT/X11 license. Due to **practical reasons** people are **avoiding** GPLv3
(you may need to check the reason why folks are doing this, or GPLv3 will soon
become the license of past,) so their recommendation is GPLv2+ for GPL.
> I don't know if we could make our criteria bulletproof against
> misunderstanding, but I will continue to clarify the meaning as needed.
>
> --
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
> Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
> Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
- Re: Please, no GitHub, (continued)
- Re: Please, no GitHub, Luboš Doležel, 2015/12/12
- Re: Please, no GitHub, Richard Stallman, 2015/12/12
- Re: Please, no GitHub, Derek Fawcus, 2015/12/12
- Re: Please, no GitHub, Richard Stallman, 2015/12/13
- Re: Please, no GitHub, Maxthon Chan, 2015/12/13
- Re: Please, no GitHub, Richard Stallman, 2015/12/14
- Re: Please, no GitHub, ChanMaxthon, 2015/12/14
- Re: Please, no GitHub,
Maxthon Chan <=
- Re: Please, no GitHub, Gregory Casamento, 2015/12/12
- Re: Please, no GitHub, Maxthon Chan, 2015/12/12
- Re: Please, no GitHub, Gregory Casamento, 2015/12/13
- Re: Please, no GitHub, Gregory Casamento, 2015/12/13
- Re: Please, no GitHub, Richard Stallman, 2015/12/13
- Re: Please, no GitHub, Maxthon Chan, 2015/12/13
- Re: Please, no GitHub, Riccardo Mottola, 2015/12/13
- Re: Please, no GitHub, Gaël Elegoët, 2015/12/13
- Re: Please, no GitHub, Richard Stallman, 2015/12/13
- Re: Please, no GitHub, H. Nikolaus Schaller, 2015/12/13