related to gitlab-ce#15621. I'm splitting this up to make tracking a bit easier. ### Summary: Gitlab currently doesn't pass B2 of the GNU ethical repository criteria. B2 states the following: >* Does not encourage bad licensing practices (no license, unclear licensing, GPL N only). (B2) Relevant mailing list discussion: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2016-04/msg00067.html ### Actions Here are some action items for achieving B2 (or just general recommendations I agree with that are relevant) based on correspondence in the mailing list with Mike and Richard Stallman: - [ ] Rename MIT to MIT Expat in the licenses list for accuracy. - [ ] Swap GPLv2 for "GPL v2 or later" and GPLv3 for "GPL v3 or later", this may be a change that needs to be made in Licensee? also see https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/rms-article-for-claritys-sake-please-dont-say-licensed-under-gnu-gpl-2 - [ ] Add a License selection field to the New Project page, GitHub already has this and I think it's a valuable addition regardless of the FSF wanting it. - [ ] They'd also like to have the page give some sort of warning about the project being proprietary if it doesn't have a license. I think this is pretty reasonable, _especially_ for Public projects (where it's assumed open source, at least on GitLab.com). The number of times people have released gems without a LICENSE in them. - [ ] At the least, providing smaller versions to be placed at the start of each file would be a nice addition. Preferably, this would be automated (with the user consenting, obviously we shouldn't inject it in every file just because they chose a license, that'd frustrate users).