
GNU ethical repository criteria - stargrave
https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html
======
hackuser
I don't understand why these specifications:

* _Does not log anything about visitors. (A+1)_

* _Follows the criteria in The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s best practices for online service providers. (A+2)_

* _Follows the Web “Content” Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0) standard. (A+3)_

* _Follows the Web Accessibility Initiative — Accessible Rich Internet Applications 1.0 (WAI-ARIA 1.0) standard. (A+4)_

.

... are considered less essential than these:

* _Says “free software,” not “open source.” (A6)_

* _Clearly endorses the Free Software Movement 's ideas of freedom. (A7)_

* _Avoids saying “Linux” without “GNU” when referring to GNU /Linux. (A8)_

.

Is privacy and accessibility really less important than GNU's branding?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Is privacy and accessibility really less important than GNU's branding?

For the GNU project? Obviously.

Heck, note that at an even higher level of importance than any of those, to be
merely _acceptable_ , a site must be one that "[r]ecommends and encourages GPL
3-or-later licensing at least as much as any other kind of licensing."

