ebookfoundation/free-programming-books vs textualize/rich
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of September 2026, free-programming-books and rich both show mixed maintenance signals. free-programming-books was committed to 2 days ago with 80+ active contributors, while rich last saw a commit 2 months ago with 5+ active contributors. free-programming-books is CC-BY-4.0-licensed while rich is MIT-licensed. Neither has known critical or high-severity CVEs in its dependency tree.
Informational only. RepoPilot summarises public signals at the time of analysis. Not professional, security, or legal advice.
ebookfoundation/free-programming-books
Mixed signals — read the receipts
non-standard license (CC-BY-4.0); no tests detected in the complete Git tree…
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10; dependency CVE scan unavailable
- ⚠Non-standard license (CC-BY-4.0) — review terms
- ⚠No tests detected in the complete Git tree
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit today
- ✓80+ active contributors
- ✓Distributed ownership (top contributor 6% of recent commits)
- ✓CC-BY-4.0 licensed
- ✓CI configured
What would improve this?
- •Use as dependency Concerns to Mixed if: clarify license terms
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against OpenSSF Scorecard
textualize/rich
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
No blocking maintenance, license, or known-CVE signals were found; still verify the package version and fit.
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10; 8 cyclic import chains — pervasive coupling
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 93% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 2mo ago
- ✓5 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- •Deploy as-is Mixed to Healthy if: bring "Branch-Protection" to ≥3/10 (see scorecard report)
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| free-programming-books | rich | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 396,376 | 57,252 |
| Last commit | 2d ago | 2mo ago |
| License | CC-BY-4.0 | MIT |
| Open issues | 82 | 372 |
| Has tests | No | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 0% | 47% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | C | C |
| Cycles | 0 | 8 |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? ebookfoundation/free-programming-books · textualize/rich
Ask AI about ebookfoundation/free-programming-books vs textualize/rich
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.