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 A 2015-10-01 1.1
GitLab C 2015-11-05 1.1
GitHub F 2016-04-13 1.1 F 2015-10-07 1.1 — A 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:

The worst thing that GitHub does is to encourage bad licensing practice: failure to include a license, failure to state the license on each source file, and failure to specify “version 3 or later” when using the GNU GPL. (B2)

Here are additional reasons to avoid GitHub. — F

Things that prevent from moving up to the next grade, C: