@0 @purism @lvdd_ @aral 1) it's both fact & opinion & the factual elements are cited. There's nothing wrong w/opinion, even scientific studies have them. There is a bug tracker for lack of citation issues. 2) I don't think Aral implied that the service need be commercial. The EU was handing out grant money a few years ago for decentralization projects. #YaCy would be eligible for that kind of grant.

@aral @lvdd_ @purism @0 BTW, it should be pointed out that source.puri.sm is an open access forge. I see that they are in copy, but they are not the author.

@koherecoWatchdog @aral @lvdd_ @purism @0 Thanks for pointing this out. To my knowledge no one who works at Purism is involved in that repo so you should treat that file as the opinions of the owner and not necessarily of Purism.


@koherecoWatchdog @aral @lvdd_ @purism @0 By the way I agree that having outside repos like that on source.puri.sm is confusing and I admit that until now I didn't realize we allowed it. I believe this is simply an oversight in permissions we granted people who requested accounts so they could file bugs and contribute to *our* projects.

It's something we are looking to address now because we don't intend source.puri.sm to be an open-access repository ala Github.

One thing to consider is that the only other freedom-privacy-netneutrality respecting public Gitlab forge is framagit, and they may be shutting down or or restricting access in a few months. Purism could serve to fill that gap. It'd be worth considering keeping it open for like-minded projects even if they aren't related to Purism products.


@kyle As someone who has used the possibility of having my own (forks of) repos at source.puri.sm I would like to say: please don't remove that completely, it really helps a lot for someone who wants to contribute. Maybe forks of existing repos there could still be allowed, just say it's not allowed to have repos for completely separate projects there? It's a shame if it becomes harder to contribute.

@eliasr I totally agree and that was the kind of thing we were going for originally, not expecting (perhaps naively) that it would be abused.

woah, hold on. You're calling the CEAP repo "abuse"? On what basis? That accusation is a bit harsh considering no restrictions are posted anywhere. Reg. page says: "Sign in to create issues, write comments, review contributions, and more."

what's "and more"?

Legal page points to a Cloudflare site: source.puri.sm/help/legal/inde

You can't really call any registrations or repo creations "abuse" until Purism publishes their expectations. Otherwise it's just another framagit to ppl.

@koherecoWatchdog @eliasr That's fair. I didn't really have a better word at hand to use for it and "abuse" is too extreme, especially since, as you say, we didn't publish any restrictions or policies. Maybe "unexpected use" ?

To be fair I wasn't just thinking of this case when I wrote that (although I didn't make that clear in my reply) but was also referring to a lot of the gitlab spam that our administrators have had to deal with as well.

If Gitlab does not give you granular access controls that enable you to block all unwanted activity while not restricting the desirable activity, the the very least you can do is post intentions.

Otherwise it's like having an open wifi with welcoming SSID, and then getting angry when people use it.


@koherecoWatchdog @eliasr All your points make sense to me. For what it's worth I'm not angry, just a bit surprised, so it's more just a case of trying to fix this for the future at this point.

Our two cents is try keep it open, remove actual abusive content.

Also please remove Cloudflare for your legal page.

@koherecoWatchdog @eliasr

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Librem Social

Librem Social is an opt-in public network. Messages are shared under Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license terms. Policy.

Stay safe. Please abide by our code of conduct.

(Source code)

image/svg+xml Librem Chat image/svg+xml