English [en]   français [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:

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)

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.”

The Free Software Foundation is the principal organizational sponsor of the GNU Operating System. Support GNU and the FSF by buying manuals and gear, joining the FSF as an associate member, or making a donation, either directly to the FSF or via Flattr.