I'm CC'ing the mailing list for these criteria ([email protected]).
These decisions are made by RMS. Richard (and repo-criteria-discuss)---I have quoted the entire message below. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 17:19:47 -0800, Niels Nesse wrote: > I recently came upon the GNU ethical repository criteria: > https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html > > I am very pleased to see the FSF take up this issue. There has been far > to much apathy on the part of developers regarding the ethics of hosts. > It bothers me however that many privacy and security issues that I would > consider basic requirements for recommendation are addressed only in the > extra credit section. > > I am a supporter of free software in large part because of it's ability > to help offer me better privacy and security. It seems backwards to me > to accept services as "recommended" that have with poor or abusive > privacy practices. Without violating any criteria in the C-A range a > host could store user data indefinitely in unencrypted form, give it to > third parties without consent or disclosure, send passwords in plain > text over email, etc, etc. > > I suggest that items A+0, A+1, and A+2 be incorporated into the B or A > grades. I think these items address similar concerns as items in lower > grades such as B1, C2, and C3. Another possibility is to simply not > address any privacy issues to avoid assessing their relative weight. > > Regards, > Niels > -- Mike Gerwitz Free Software Hacker | GNU Maintainer http://mikegerwitz.com FSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
