GNU Ethical Repository Criteria Evaluations
刀塔自走棋手游什么时候出 www.zvajc.icu 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.
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.
- There are normal Web access/download logs which sometimes include IP addresses. (A+1)
- It follows EFF's criteria only partially; complying with the rest remains in progress. (A+2)
- HTML_CodeSniffer reports dozen of errors and warnings related to WCAG 2.0 compliance on every page. (A+3)
- There is no WAI-ARIA markup in its pages. (A+4)
- There is no way of exporting data contributed by project owners or contributors. (A+5)
GitLab — C
- Encourages bad licensing practice, including no license; failure to state the license on each source file; and failure to say which GPL versions apply. (B2)
GitHub — F
- Specific information may not be available in all countries; see roskomnadzor and export controls for more details. (C2)
GitHub also encourages bad licensing practice, including no license; failure to state the license on each source file; and failure to say which GPL versions apply. (B2)