15 ms·

I regret migrating to Codeberg

• lardosaurusrex 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  • boramalper 2mo ago
    > It's interesting because the terms have repeatedly stated that using them isn't banned This is the relevant part in Codeberg's Terms of Use: [0] > You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5). The only ambiguous part is what "mostly" means in practice, but otherwise the Terms of Use is pretty clear. I'll admit that their blog post [1] is more inclusive and tries to clarify things but it's all just one very unnecessary drama [2]. [0] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse.md https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse... [1] https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-... [2] The proposal for this change was called "ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions" so you can tell that some people are very opinionated on this.
    • lardosaurusrex 2mo ago
      [flagged]
    • 0rzech 2mo ago
      > I'll admit that their blog post [1] is more inclusive Amongst other unwanted activities, their blog post mentions "Projects written and maintained with heavy use of LLMs". If you often chat with LLM, or ask the agent to review your changes, it's writing and maintaining the project with heavy use of LLMs too. IMHO, this is even more restrictive and ambiguous than "projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools". And what if a project is hand-written, but the tests are LLM-generated and then refactored by a human? Well, tests are part of a project, so it's bad too. Also, while reading their blog post, I couldn't shake the feeling that they disdain niche single-person projects. Apparently they never intended to be a "dumping ground", as many people from their community now claim. But it's insulting to assume that when you share your small single-person project, you just "dump" something, as if it is some kind of trash by definition.
  • jasonvorhe 2mo ago
    So you checked up on everyone critical of this decision in these comments, dug into their git history and confirmed that assumption?
• isityettime 2mo ago
  A nitpick: > the only cOmMuNiTy [most free software projects] have around them are the users requesting features or reporting bugs while most of the time not contributing in any form whatsoever Reporting bugs is contributing. Especially when you emphasize "any form whatsoever". That said, I broadly agree with the author. But I wonder if this attempt to discourage egregious AI slop will some day make Codeberg a more trustworthy or pleasant place than alternatives. Maybe it's not the right choice for OP (or me, for some projects), but it seems like a good thing for a sizeable forge to exist that has some strictness or selectiveness to it. Maybe the world doesn't need another one-size-fits-all platform like GitHub. Codeberg might ironically become a boon to AI companies with this policy, as well, by effectively doing a bunch of curation work for them, if not by providing outright untainted training data.
  • embedding-shape 2mo ago
    > Codeberg might ironically become a boon to AI companies with this policy, as well, by effectively doing a bunch of curation work for them, if not by providing outright untainted training data. Or the opposite, as the rules are you cannot use AI, all the attribution will be removed, but sure enough there still will be a bunch of AI written code there, people will just have an incentive to mask it instead. So it ends up being a place where AI/human code will be even harder to see the difference between, compared to GitHub, where people apparently have no shame in just attaching claude's username to their commits.
    • pocksuppet 2mo ago
      Why would you mask AI code and place it on Codeberg instead of some other place where it won't be deleted on sight? The only reason you would do that is to attack Codeberg.
      • embedding-shape 2mo ago
        Why do people use FOSS in their own projects without any sort of credit or attribution to those projects? Why do people copy code, remove who made it and say they wrote it? People do a lot of shitty stuff, hasn't stopped them before.
• Rendello 2mo ago
  If you click to another tab, the site changes its title and favicon to a random webpage like: - Pick up lines suggestions – ChatGPT - Rick Astley - Never Gonna Give You Up - Youtube - Amazon.com: waifu pillow When you go back to it there's an overlay chastising you for allowing JS on an untrusted website. I thought it was pretty funny. You can see the list of fake pages in the source (which has the sketchiest URL ever due to punycode + the filename): https://xn--gckvb8fzb.com/js/kill.js https://xn--gckvb8fzb.com/js/kill.js
  • itsmartapuntocm 2mo ago
    I feel like it's a bit ironic that the blog post chastises Codeberg for taking a stance and then does the same with JS.
    • FireInsight 2mo ago
      The whole blog post is also taking a stance. What is criticized is the specific stance taken by Codeberg. TFA seems to state that Codeberg should allow projects of all kinds to be hosted on their service (though apparently artificially limiting their resources would be alright).
    • kappyuware 2mo ago
      One of them is a website that hosts source code from other users, their "stance" is arguably more important because of that. The other one is just a personal blog, completely different subjects. I created an account just to reply to this.
  • BoxwoodSeed 2mo ago
    I find it endearing that someone is keeping up the resistance against JavaScript. Used things like noscript myself since 2008 or so. Eventually gave up since nearly no website would work that way and served you captcha loops instead.
    • akkartik 2mo ago
      I still use NoScript. I actually started in 2018. I will turn on 1 or 2 js sites for a respectable looking page, but blank screens and captchas are a good signal to bounce, or occasionally to use an incognito window which enables all JS. As the web gets more hostile (2018 was so much worse than 2008) NoScript will be more competitive in spite of all the inconvenience.
• embedding-shape 2mo ago
  > A brief comment on Codeberg’s new terms, and why a free-software host deciding which projects are welcome worries But, wait, Codeberg always had limitations on what projects are hosted there??? This been very explicit from the start, it's for FOSS and anything outside of that isn't welcome. It's one of the reasons I donate there in the first place. Now they're adding additional requirements, which most of the voting memebers voted for, this doesn't seem strange to me. > Unfortunately, the latest update to its terms of service seems to mark a first step in changing one part I moved there for, namely the “freedom” part. Given they'll kick you off the platform if you're not aligned with FOSS views and act accordingly, it seems strange to have associated Codeberg with "freedom" at all. Side-note, but there is something that keeps popping up as an overlay on that page but I never end up being able to see what it is, as I click continuously as I read, and seems it auto-closes no matter where you click. Seems a bit distracting if nothing else :)
  • selfhoster1312 2mo ago
    > Given they'll kick you off the platform if you're not aligned with FOSS views and act accordingly, it seems strange to have associated Codeberg with "freedom" at all. It's different conceptions of freedom. For some, the freedom to oppress is not freedom at all, and building non-free software is oppressive. > Side-note, but there is something that keeps popping up as an overlay on that page but I never end up being able to see what it is, as I click continuously as I read Yes, clicking makes it go away! It's an overlay that opens when you leave the page, saying you should really not run Javascript programs sent by the web server because they can do pretty much anything.
  • myng111 2mo ago
    > it's for FOSS It is for FOSS, but they seem to be more restrictive now than even that, and I don't mean by LLMs. To quote their blog post: https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-... > So while the following use cases are discouraged (similar to private repositories), they are likely to be tolerated in practice: > > Side projects and experiments with little resource usage > > Specific tools and custom scripts that would be unlikely to find a community anyway, even if they were not LLM-generated I do find that extremely disappointing, that seemingly valid, human-written, compliant FOSS projects are merely "tolerated in practice". I am not storing my code there in any case.
• bayindirh 2mo ago
  For a more informed discussion about what's banned and what's not, I'm leaving here this discussion on Mastodon: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116962454004862117 https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116962454004862117 TL;DR: AI assisted coding, when used responsibly, is not banned, however one-shotting something via vibe-coding and hosting it as a complete project, is. Also, Codeberg always had a limit on private repositories and never wanted to be a place for non-FLOSS software. It's their mission. They are not out there to replace GitHub/GitLab.
  • ctoth 2mo ago
    > TL;DR: AI assisted coding, when used responsibly, is not banned, however one-shotting something via vibe-coding and hosting it as a complete project, is. On Tuesday I was working on my Braille 'N Speak emulator[0], an ancient Z180-based accessible notetaker for the blind. I wanted a z180 emulation library that wasn't z180-emu (GPL) and that I could use on the web via wasm, on my phone, and would have a Python binding. Of course, this is a perfect sort of job for an agent with a verification loop, so I went off and researched if there were any standard conformance suites for z80/z180. Turns out there are a ton! I wired up my verification loops, fired off /goal, and sat back. Now, I have my library[1]. Was "AI assisted coding" "used responsibly?" Should this sort of thing be allowed? Why or why not? [0]: https://github.com/ctoth/qns https://github.com/ctoth/qns [1]: https://github.com/ctoth/z-core https://github.com/ctoth/z-core
    • invictati 2mo ago
      It's about control. It's always been about control. The moderators of this project would happily throw you under the bus if you ever in any way displeased them while being an AI user.
      • jasonvorhe 2mo ago
        I think this is the main drive behind this. Make it easier to get rid of people you don't like/don't welcome on your platform without making it explicit, because that could surface some biases of theirs.
• charcircuit 2mo ago
  >and the only cOmMuNiTy they have around them are the users requesting features or reporting bugs Not even this. Most open source software is solely used by the creator and usually soon after abandoned. The idea of starting a new project and abandoning it after the honeymoon period is nowhere near a new phenomenon.
  • rootlocus 2mo ago
    I have ~100 repos on github and only a few of them with LLM assistance. Aside from a few comments and a PR here and there throughout the years nobody cares about them. I have to assume it's the same for the majority of developers.
• anticorporate 2mo ago
  The author seems annoyed that Codeberg wants to focus on projects that have a legitimate contributor community and is not designed for one-off individual projects. I don't share that concern. It's not all that different from Mastodon instances. It's a community space, and the community gets to decide who they allow to use their resources. Personally, I have a group of friends who share a GitLab instance, for example. Are you allowed to use it? No. Why? Because I didn't go to middle school with you decades ago. Is that fair? I don't really find that question relevant. I also keep a Gitea instance running at home for all the junk that really doesn't belong on someone else's hardware. Using someone else's forge isn't the only option.
  • boramalper 2mo ago
    > The author seems annoyed that Codeberg wants to focus on projects that have a legitimate contributor community and is not designed for one-off individual projects. I think Codeberg was never intended for one-off individual projects in the first place, such as them discouraging private repositories. Quoting their Terms of Use [0]: > Private repositories are only allowed for things required for FLOSS projects, like storing secrets, team-internal discussions or hiding projects from the public until they're ready for usage and/or contribution. [...] And this makes a ton of sense, because Codeberg is a community-funded volunteer-supported non-profit, and it doesn't make sense to spend their resources for repositories that don't benefit the public. I think "legitimate contributor community" is just an excuse so I am not going to dwell on it. From Ghostty to Redis, rsync to Linux kernel, more and more FOSS projects are taking advantage of various AI tools in a responsible manner and closing the door on them is just unfortunate and backward in my opinion. We gain nothing from this change and lose a ton of progress in software freedom and digital commons. > It's not all that different from Mastodon instances. It's a community space, and the community gets to decide who they allow to use their resources. Of course, and the bigger community gets to discuss their decision. :) [0] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse.md https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse...
    • Yokohiii 2mo ago
      I didn't look into codeberg really and didn't follow any discussions around it, except some projects fleeing to codeberg. At the first glance it just looks like a github competitor. Recently I tried to create a repo there and nothing pointed out any of the noted restrictions or preferences. I think that is a clear communication problem. Maybe the times are chaotic for them and they need to figure out how to position themselves. But appearing as just another github and expecting people to be reasonable with it's usage, is unreasonable on their side.
• lioeters 2mo ago
  > LLM-generated code, or is cryptocurrency-related Codeberg is making decisions to better manage their resource and infrastructure. It's no different than any other privately owned platform, making decisions to forbid certain kinds of content, or ban people for various reasons. Unlike other large centralized platforms, they at least tried to involve the community in this decision-making process, but in the end it's their call. If you don't want to be under the mercy of someone else's decisions, you have to become more independent and host it yourself. Even then, who owns your server? Who owns the "pipes" of the network? They have terms of services, and can also ban you for various reasons, including your nationality, beliefs, etc. This line of thinking leads to a bigger question of how/whether a truly decentralized and free (as in freedom) computing and communication network is possible, how such a network can defend against abuse and malicious actors without compromising that freedom.
• serious_angel 2mo ago
  > The announcement blog post, however, reads very poorly, and the section titled “The development team of none” is the worst of it. It states: > > Using LLMs to work with your code gives you a kick of adrenaline. You can develop at a rapid pace, build things as if you had a large team. Only that you have none. In fact, you are (often) alone, working with a statistical machine that turns energy into code. --- This naive "rapid pace"... Those who do in that careless "pace" will invest more time maintaining it, fixing it, supporting it, or well... realizing it, I believe. Not to mention that they make themselves more and more dependent on some LLM vendor prospering these vendors with each iteration and tokens burned, and training their models on your own ideas, creativity, and your time of life. Yet, not a single person will guarantee a stable outcome, and no one to blame after. Is that "development"? That is dark horrific sorrow. This "vibe coding" may be quick at starters, if lucky and all Gods and the Fortune got you, yet supporting that and investing your life time after? No, never. I have my own mind to train. The people I work with have their own minds. The Communities out there have their own minds. We all have our mind to develop, and learn from each other. Otherwise, it’s empty, pointless, and not art you will be proud of as a developer who inscribes moments in the history, and stand your name in it.
• pbronez 2mo ago
  This prompted me to revisit my own decision to avoid Codeberg by re-reading their Terms of Use[1]. A few things stand out: - They explicitly require all hosted software to have a FLOSS license - Private repos are only allowed in support of Public FLOSS repos, with a scary ambiguous note about "really small and personal stuff" - Projects with heavy use of coding AI are explicitly forbidden This means I can't use Codeberg for personal projects that aren't intended for public consumption, especially if I used Claude Code to whip them up. Oh well, this is why I self-host Forgejo. For reference, here's the parts of the TOS that define the above: > 1. Public repository content shall be made available under a copyright licence [...] referred to as ‘licences for free and open source software, free and open source hardware, or free cultural works’. Examples of such licences include those created or approved for free software projects by the Free Software Foundation, for open source projects by the Open Source Initiative, and for free cultural works by Creative Commons. Note, however, that the Creative Commons licences with Non-Commercial (NC) or No Derivatives (ND) restrictions are not licences for free cultural works and thus do not fulfil the licensing requirement. > 2. Private repositories are only allowed for things required for FLOSS projects, like storing secrets, team-internal discussions or hiding projects from the public until they're ready for usage and/or contribution. They are also allowed for really small & personal stuff like your journal, config files, ideas or notes, but explicitly not as a personal cloud or media storage. > 7. You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5). [1] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse.md https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse...
  • pocksuppet 2mo ago
    Yes that's correct. They don't want you, they say good riddance. They want to support free software.
  • nottorp 2mo ago
    Interesting. Every time Codeberg was mentioned on here it was perfectly clear they only host public open source projects. Why would you even assume they allow private repos?
• Aachen 2mo ago
  I'm a member of Codeberg and was allowed to vote on these amendments. There was the annual assembly meeting before the ballots were sent by email. Each proposal had a short presentation and a few minutes of Q&A. It wasn't a discussion (the text was final at this point), it was just to ask for clarifications. In the meeting I asked about the server load that they mentioned in their presentation, but misphrased it and got some answer about (AI?)bots scraping Codeberg and not if auto-generated code being shared on Codeberg is actually an issue. It seemed pretty useless compared to commenting on the ticket where one could have a structured discussion. I also don't know how many of the >1000 members were in the meeting in the first place and how many just got the email "Wanna ban AI? Vote now!" Once the results were announced, the rest of the users came into the ticket and started asking questions https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19869436 https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19... This was then shut down and if you have questions you should join the chat room on Matrix
  • vintagedave 2mo ago
    Troubling, though I see it's a typical internet half-off-topic discussion. What kind of conversation has been present in the chat room?
    • Aachen 2mo ago
      I didn't join the chat so I don't know that. It's final now anyway, nobody can change the text (next year you can propose another vote). No idea what the point would be of ephemeral conversations about it
    • embedding-shape 2mo ago
      > What kind of conversation has been present in the chat room? The original reply that closes the issue is this: > This is not a place to continue or start a new discussion about AI or not AI and its copyright status in the world, it will not change the results or how its going to be interpreted. I'm closing this issue, you're more than welcome to continue this at https://matrix.to/#/#codeberg-offtopic:matrix.org https://matrix.to/#/#codeberg-offtopic:matrix.org Make of the room topic what you will.
• duskdozer 2mo ago
  I'm guessing the >sh.tcoin in the censorship section is ironic? Doesn't seem to be fleshed out though
• vintagedave 2mo ago
  The most insightful part is: > [From CodeBerg] It seems like many ‘vibe coders’ don’t realize that they don’t actually have a community around them. > This is out of touch with how most free software gets made. The majority of FOSS developers are one-man-shows Yes! And LLMs can be valuable to solo devs! > The decisions did go through Codeberg’s own Assembly 2026, which is more process than most platforms bother with, and yet as an ordinary user I found out about it the way probably most people else did... I agree this is troubling. There's a lot of LLM dislike that verges into a potentially problematic ideology. I know: how a tool is used, not the tool itself, etc, but I'm unsure that that kind of approach is visible to CodeBerg. I write open source, and closed source, and I am a responsible developer who uses AI and gets more done, better. I wish I was welcome there.
  • jasonvorhe 2mo ago
    When I read this quote I also had to think of this tante person on Mastodon urging their thousands of followers to vote for a certain thing. If one actor like this can possibly impact a small community this way, I'm on the cautious to sceptical side about that community project's future.
    • selfhoster1312 2mo ago
      I'm sorry but you are completely out of touch with reality. This is a non-profit calling on their members to vote. Non-members didn't have a say, so a random member posting on Mastodon is not going to influence the results in the way that you imply (i.e. trolls raiding an online form). Also, despite what your remote view suggests, members of non-profits usually have political opinions. Codeberg was founded for political reasons by people with political opinions: the members aren't waiting for someone on Mastodon to have an opinion. Also, apart from this, people having opinions and encouraging others to defend their opinions is quite normal democratic process in a non-profit. Nothing to see here.
      • jasonvorhe 2mo ago
        I see multiple people in the replies that all confirm they voted in favor. I never claimed anyone could vote.
• FireInsight 2mo ago
  > Despite not owning a single project that falls into either banned category, I’m now going to look into setting up my own public Git host That's.. good, actually. I believe that even if Codeberg was good and perfect for every use case of code hosting, not every one and every project should be there. Vibe-coders, shitcoin cryptomaxis, and lovers of total freedom surely have other places to go and are able to set up forges using the same software that Codeberg uses as well. It's the magic of open source. Seriously, we should let go of the idea that all of humanity should be part of a single Data Silo on the internet. GitHub, Twitter, Reddit, sure, they might have been better back in the day, but being _the_ places for a type of content online they were able to privatize a lot of very valuable data, sell it off for AI training, while slowly strangling to death any interoperability and "public access" that once made the services feel like a free-for-all market square of the internet. Long live the small web! Codeberg is not in any way obligated to make sweeping infrastructure changes just to make sure that they can keep hosting projects they find to be against their mission.
  • mschuster91 2mo ago
    > Seriously, we should let go of the idea that all of humanity should be part of a single Data Silo on the internet. There's a reason these came to be in the first place though, and accounts are among the most prominent ones. A new forum means not just registering at yet another place, it also means creating a new label/folder in your email inbox and a new filter rule to properly redirect stuff. That's friction.
    • inigyou 2mo ago
      That was never much of a problem on the old internet. It's just something corporations made us feel entitled to. You don't use the same memorized password for all your really unimportant accounts and forget about them after you're done? There's always the email option, too. "Found a bug? Email bugs@example.com." - that's the original decentralised discussion forum.
      • mschuster91 2mo ago
• tehabe 2mo ago
  Codeberg is run by a German association, which defines its role in the bylaws to support FOSS (§2 in the bylaws). You can use their software Forgejo to run your own server.
• pocksuppet 2mo ago
  Article summary: Censorship is when you choose not to host some things on your platform. The author, although not caring about LLMs or cryptocurrency, can't bear to use a platform where some things are not allowed.
  • akkartik 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    • mcv 2mo ago
      Weird thing is: I agree with both of you. Of course they can decide what to host and what not. And it's sad if that excludes me. But insulting small projects like that was uncalled-for.
      • akkartik 2mo ago
        Absolutely. I have no complaint with their actual change to the terms of service. I've had an account with them for years, and I stopped hosting new repos there a year or two ago, because I got mixed signals about precisely what kinds of projects they want to host. I don't need a host, plenty of fish in the sea. But I also think the world is better for having them in it and being hardened against enshittification, and I don't want to see them constantly struggling to stay up under assault from LLM crawlers. I wish them well. I am constantly ill-choosing words I didn't mean, it's not such a big deal.
      • hellcow 2mo ago
        Did we read the same article? > To us, it seems ridiculous to see projects with a single developer and virtually no users consuming as much or even more resources than some of the largest community projects on Codeberg, which operate frugal with CI/CD and storage resources. We do not believe it is reasonable for Codeberg to invest our precious donation money into hosting of large ghost projects. This seems like a staggeringly reasonable take.
        • deleted 2mo ago
• Yokohiii 2mo ago
  I wonder how anyone can migrate to codeberg. Every time I check, the site is lagging. Few days ago I registered and tried to create a repository. I couldn't, site busy or something. The migration towards codeberg already started a while ago, don't see how it can scale.
  • bel8 2mo ago
    Perhaps they started banning entire categories of projects so their infra could actually work again. Banning a portion of their community is... one way to reduce server load.
    • inigyou 2mo ago
      Are they even part of the community, or do they show up, demand resources, and leave? There are registered paying members with voting rights. You can easily become one. Clearly not many of them are vibecoders.
• preya2k 2mo ago
  Another very american understanding of censorship. In Germany (where Codeberg is registered), censorship means censorship by a government. A private entity (Verein) deciding what and how they want to run their business is typically not considered censorship (maybe the term "private censorship" could work), but just "freedom of doing business". So if you want to argue FOR freedom, you could also turn this argument around and support the fact that a private entity should be able to decide whatever the fuck they want to do with their own service offering.
  • nottorp 2mo ago
    I don't view this decision as censorship, more like anti spam...
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    Actually, the American understanding of censorship,(the first amendment) is exactly the same. It only counts if the government does it.
• foul 2mo ago
  Hmmm. They migrated from github because it was becoming shitty, now their complaint with codeberg is more that will ban on the basis of content. On the next gitwhatever they will find for sure other issues. I know it's hard but any non-casual developer must self-host their version control (and assorted project data), and treat cloud VCs sites just as mirrors.
• lowbloodsugar 2mo ago
  Whole story makes me think of Lyudmilla from Star City. You think these measure are about the common good but most people just don’t see the psychopaths in front of them taking control, step by step. You didn’t vote to stop AI slop. You voted to approve discrimination. The question on paper was “Can we ban AI slop” but the actual vote was “This site doesn’t discriminate. Some of us want power to fuck people over. Do you want to take a step in that direction?” It’s funny that they talk about communities because online communities are very often cesspools of psychopaths. I suppose it’s good that they showed us who they are. Democracy without a constitution is just mob rule and eventually autocracy.
  • invictati 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    • lowbloodsugar 2mo ago
      “At least I’m not getting shot” isn’t much of an argument.
• rmast 2mo ago
  I’d been thinking maybe I should move some projects from GitHub to Codeberg… but this change has a chilling effect since now whoever is making the LLM-generated decision might arbitrarily decide to ban a project based on undefined criteria, like say an em dash in a README — so projects hosted there are not in any way safe from just disappearing. To be honest though, I don’t know what happens when something gets banned from Codeberg, or anything about the appeals process, so my brain leap to the project just disappears forever; afaik the posts I read about this policy change didn’t say. Would welcome anyone familiar with their policies to chime in and enlighten me.
  • jasonvorhe 2mo ago
    That project just disappearing from your mind is probably for the better. If it was a company doing such an activist rug pull, you probably wouldn't want to deal with them either. That's probably just intuition telling you something. They could've found so many more legitimate reasons for not wanting pure vibe code on their platform (load, resource constraints, github's uptime since AI assistance became mainstream, etc) but they chose the virtue signalling path instead.
    • 6031769 2mo ago
      It isn't virtue signalling if they actually do it. Then it is just virtuous.
• addedGone 2mo ago
  Codeberg is also not being considered anymore since they are censoring legitimate projects, crazy honestly, people would have thought that they would be neutral but it's the opposite of neutral, it's way worse than Corporations. Also, in 1 year tops, no dev will manually code anymore, forcing users to code manually is absurd.
  • ethin 2mo ago
    This is a pretty great strawman of what their actual terms of service and blog post says. You might want to read both quite thoroughly.
    • addedGone 2mo ago
      It isn't, I'm literally not allowed to host a project on it, knowing obviously it's 100% "LLM-made" nowadays, no modern softwares can be hosted on it, Bun can't be hosted on it (100% "AI" now), you don't find it ridiculous? The world is changing, they don't want to acknowledge it. The cryptocurrency related projects ban is also insane knowing how much it has contributed to having greater crypto librairies, including all the newer zK stuff. The entire planet is migrating towards AI coding, and Codeberg is going the opposite way, it's a sure way to die, let's speak about it in 2028 where I'm ready to bet that less than 0.1% of all software dev will be manually editing files. To me, it seems that they can't manage their infrastructure properly cost wise and decide instead to punish the users for it.
      • ethin 2mo ago
        No, I don't find it ridiculous: 1. You are not entitled to a website hosting your content. A website refusing to host you is not censorship in any form whatsoever. 2. I'm pretty positive they did this because of infrastructure reasons as a secondary reason to their mission. LLMs mean people can just pump out projects at light speed, and that costs money to both host and do things with on CI/CD. If you want that potentially to be lifted in the future, pay them so they are able to have that infrastructure.
      • inigyou 2mo ago
• zombiefromfo 2mo ago
  [flagged]
• chlorion 2mo ago
  A little bit offtopic, but I spend 12 USD a month for a 1 high performance core, 2GB ram, 50GB NVME SSD VPS, and slap nginx and cgit config on there, and host my own git repos. I realize this doesn't work for everyone, and not everyone has the money to spare, but it's really nice to be able to host your own stuff on your own website, and not be tied down to a forge like github or codeberg. Bonus points if you have the hardware and network capacity to host this at home!
  • imtringued 2mo ago
    How is it bonus points if you host at home? My big fear is that a fire, etc deletes my data. You're going to need that extra server whether you like it or not.
    • rmoriz 2mo ago
      tarsnap, restic, borgbackup and others are your friend. When you do your own backup, you know it works (well, you have to).
    • deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
• jasonvorhe 2mo ago
  I'm still undecided if I want to self host either gitea or forgejo. Can someone who used both or is particularly experienced with one of them tell me which project to settle with? Most comparisons I found were all written with someone who didn't seem all that ideologically neutral on the matter. To my understanding forgejo (the gitea fork) is run by the people behind Codeberg whereas Codeberg is running a customised version of forgejo. If Codeberg can just pull the rug like this, shouldn't I expect similar behaviour from forgejo in the future? I really don't need all that "holier than though" drama when I self host my stuff. Perhaps I better settle for gitea then?
  • charlie-83 2mo ago
    (Disclaimer: I use Gitea daily for work and Codeberg daily for personal stuff. I prefer Codeberg) Gitea is developed by a for-profit organisation while Forgejo is developed by a non-profit. Ability for rug pull is much greater for gitea imo. Gitea (organisation) already develops non-foss software to sit on top of Gitea (software). Gitea requires copyright attributions for contributions so is more able to change the Gitea license to something non-free in the future. Codeberg can make up whatever rules they want for their Forgjo instance but you can do what you like on your self-hosted instance so I dont think that the governance of codeberg should concerning for self-hosting. If Forgejo somehow enshittified, I would expect a popular fork immediately. If Gitea enshittified, I expect most people who would have forked already went to forgejo
  • thyristan 2mo ago
    I'm not sure either, the forgejo/gitea fork seems to also involve a lot of activism and interpersonal drama. And codeberg shares a lot of the people involved in that drama on the forgejo side. The gitea/opencollective side has it's own share of "difficult" people. So I know of no technical reason why any should be better. And the potential for drama and conflict inherent in the developers of both projects make me wary. In the end I decided to use forgejo, because absent a corporation at least the possibility of a corporate rugpull is reduced.
  • p2detar 2mo ago
    If your goal is to just store your repos, even Gogs will do. I self-host Forgejo on sqlite and it‘s been great thusfar. I do not yet use runners, so can‘t say much about that. The Docker registry they offer is a bit awkward to use but better than nothing. My instance is only intranet visible, so I only push to http:// remotes. I have my repos docker volume backed up automatically, so I feel like I got a pretty solid setup right now.
• jsLavaGoat 2mo ago
  People who derisively call AIs LLMs (not people who are referring to the specific type of system) because they aren't really intelligence or whatever--and thereby sort of ignoring that "artificial" is there--are they aware that some of the AI models we use, e.g., diffusers, are not "LLMs?"
• jasonvorhe 2mo ago
  > Using LLMs to work with your code gives you a kick of adrenaline. You can develop at a rapid pace, build things as if you had a large team. Only that you have none. In fact, you are (often) alone, working with a statistical machine that turns energy into code. Is anyone else extremely annoyed with the way this is written? To me it reeks of paternalistic arrogance that simultaneously exposes the author's armchair psychological headcanon about how they imagine people to work with LLMs.
  • veganmosfet 2mo ago
    yes, I am also disappointed by this arrogance.
  • lowsong 2mo ago
    Except that it's true. It feels good to use them, to feel productive, and that is addictive. That's the hard truth: Vibe coders are addicted to using LLMs. You're going to reject that. You're now going straight to typing up a response about how I'm wrong. But addicts often cannot accept they are addicts. It's why the first step is always recognizing you have a problem, because even that is a hard step. Tech is full of people who think they're smarter than everyone else, which, as always, makes you more susceptible to addiction. If you think "I'm smart, I can't get addicted. I can tell the difference." then no. No you can't.
    • throwayay4929 2mo ago
      > Tech is full of people who think they're smarter than everyone else Thanks for offering yourself as a prime example.
• znpy 2mo ago
  I mostly stay away from community-lead stuff (and services in particular) mostly because of this. It’s a never ending drama, and every quarter there’s something new to hate on or get offended by. I’m tired, boss.
  • thyristan 2mo ago
    As opposed to business-lead stuff where their credit card company, VC or possible future owner says that you are an undesirable customer and need to get bent?
    • znpy 2mo ago
      Nah, i mostly self host my stuff and if i need anything public I’ll go with providers that don’t nag me with their ideology of the month
• veganmosfet 2mo ago
  Same. I moved to codeberg because of the non-commercial and "freedom" aspects. I enjoy vibe-coding tools for different applications, e.g. for prompt injection research. Now I will probably move back to Github. I accept this decision but I am quite disappointed by the ideology and black & white view. LLMs are a fascinating technology created by us humans, and they have the potential to make our life better. We shall stay curious.
  • vaylian 2mo ago
    > LLMs are a fascinating technology created by us humans, and they have the potential to make our life better. Just like forever chemicals. LLMs cause a lot of problems and they should not be disregarded. > We shall stay curious. Curiousity is fine. But critical thinking is still advised
    • veganmosfet 2mo ago
      Appreciate the comment. Curiosity and critical thinking are both important when it comes to new technologies, agree. Agree too that LLMs can cause problems. However, I see a real net plus for me (in comparison, I never understood well why blockchain was so hyped). As a non-developer but with technical background, I can now create my own software tools or modify available tools for my needs; LLMs are also fantastic tutors - this feels like progress. I can imagine that researchers in many disciplines also feel this. At the same time I am scared, because many of my skills are just obsolete. And the environmental consequences are also "problematic". On the other hand, individual transport and industrial agriculture are (my intuitive take) much worse.
    • 83642736392 2mo ago
      [dead]
  • selfhoster1312 2mo ago
    > they have the potential to make our life better If you're a vegan as your nick suggests, i would suggest to reconsider this point. Capitalism was already bent on sending us towards a 6th mass species extinction (starting right under our noses), but so-called AI has changed the scale and speed of the curb drastically in only a few years. See for example this article for recent Google stats: https://ketanjoshi.co/2026/07/01/googles-exponential-path-to-climate-wrecking-digital-bloat/ https://ketanjoshi.co/2026/07/01/googles-exponential-path-to... Recent AI datacenter projects such as Stratos (40000 acres) are on a scale of industrial destruction my mind fails to comprehend. I'm not 100% vegan, but i'm 100% "AI-vegan", and i definitely would recommend you considering it. PS: All i said was just about the environmental impact of LLMs. I suspect the human impact to be just as bad (cognitive impairment, accrued exploitation, etc).
• ricardobeat 2mo ago
  [flagged]
• vips7L 2mo ago
  Think this convinced me to move over.
  • bel8 2mo ago
    Curious about what in the article convinced you.
  • Seb-C 2mo ago
    Same here, I might actually migrate.
• danpalmer 2mo ago
  The answer to big platforms enshittifying is not to move to smaller versions of the same thing. This didn't work for GitHub -> Codeberg/Sourcehut, it didn't work for Twitter -> Mastodon. Because the problem is not necessarily the size, it's the power. Codeberg is exerting power beyond what it should and users have little recourse and get caught up in the issues, some Mastodon servers are fine but there have been plenty of admins who had the power go to their heads or had fallings out with other parts of the network, and again it's the users who get caught up in it. The answer is building systems that prevent that power trip from ever happening. This is why Bluesky is a better answer to Twitter than Mastodon – the company has its faults, but the approach is a fundamental step forward that Mastodon did not take. The same thing is true of things like Tangled for a software forge. It's no surprise that both of these are based on ATProto, although I'm not saying ATProto is the only option here.
  • qznc 2mo ago
    How does Bluesky or ATProto prevent that power trip?
    • danpalmer 2mo ago
      I'm not going to do the protocol justice in an HN comment, but a core goal is to separate the entities that control the data, the entities that run the network, and the entities that control the interfaces (and recommendation algos etc). If your Mastodon admin goes rogue, you a) have to get your data out of their hands, and b) have to rebuild your Mastodon presence in a new location, all your connections, history, etc are gone. That's exactly the same problem that Twitter users faced. On ATProto, you can self-host your data while still making use of Bluesky/etc, in a way that you can't do with Mastodon or even email. You can choose who your UI comes from and just switch UI and keep everything, you can switch who your moderators are and keep everything else, etc. Check out Blacksky, they're doing amazing work running a whole separate ATProto system that is fully compatible with, and actually the same social network as Bluesky. You can transparently migrate, at a protocol level, something Mastodon/ActivityPub doesn't attempt to tackle.
      • 2mo ago
• tebruno99 2mo ago
  I think Codeberg is well within its rights to offer services in the way that it wants. If customers don't like it they can move & stop paying. Find a host that fits the terms you want and expect. That is what is great about Codeberg, no lockin no scam.
  • z0ltan 2mo ago
    [dead]
  • NooneAtAll3 2mo ago
    Codeberg is within its right to do what it wants and users are within their rights to say Codeberg's actions are shitty, could've been done in a better way for same effect, and are problematic enough to raise all sorts of alarms and recommendations of avoiding any positive connotations in the future
    • rmoriz 2mo ago
      This is not entirely true. They are a registered non-profit club. They will lose their non-profit status if tax authority finds violating them https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ao_1977/__52.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ao_1977/__52.html Then they are just a (commercial) club that has to pay taxes.
• rudolfs 2mo ago
  OP might want to give Radicle a try: https://radicle.network https://radicle.network
• shumaila12 2mo ago
  [dead]
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• kamranjon 2mo ago
  I’ve recently moved to sourcehut and really enjoy it so far! While I think the creator has strong personal opinions about LLMs - I don’t think they have any intentions of banning LLM generated projects. Anyhow just wanted to share because I think it’s a really nice product that isn’t overbloated with JS and just gets the thing done.
• waterTanuki 2mo ago
  > If the maintainer of the largest and most consequential open-source project on the planet can treat LLMs as a tool to be judged on its results rather than a category to be banned on sight, a backyard code forge can manage the same. Apples to Oranges here. Linus has himself and the entirety of the Linux Foundation maintainers + outside contributors to effectively review and gatekeep llm slop from making into ONE codebase. Codeberg has presumably way less people working for it than the Linux Foundation, and has to monitor an avalanche of codebases for slop. Of course they aren't going to be able to pull off what Linux can do.
• adamddev1 2mo ago
  > In addition, Codeberg conflates “having a community” with “being legitimate software worth hosting” I don't think this is a fair summary. I don't see this conflation in Codeberg's blog post. The words in quotation marks don't actually exist in Codeberg's blog post. It seems that what they are saying is: In a free hosting platform where we share all the resources, it's not fair that some people using LLMs are using up disproportionately huge hosting resources to handle the unnaturally large amounts of resources they can churn out with these tools. I'm a solo dev, and I couldn't find the judgement against solo developers or any slight against people who don't have a team. The concern is that some people don't gobble up an unfair amount of resources. I personally have been moving to self-hosted Foregejo for ultimate freedom. But I also think it's fair for some providers have the freedom to take a bit more of a harsh (or based - depending on your perspective) stance against LLM generated code. I mean, a lot of people have been bemoaning the fact that the human-generated material has been increasingly hard to find in a sea of AI-generated material. It could be nice to have a corner of curated, human-made code still available on the web.
  • whateverboat 2mo ago
    I think you are wrong. A better way is to have a free tier and charge for usage.
    • inigyou 2mo ago
      Codeberg is a registered non-profit charity whose purpose is to provide free services for free software projects. You can make a different site that works the way you want it to.
  • venussnatch 2mo ago
    Define resources and create a better limit then. 10 small code-only projects will take orders of magnitude less storage, bandwidth and cpu than one project with committed image and sound assets.
    • zyx321 2mo ago
      The resource limit are quite clear: From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.
• HelloNurse 2mo ago
  > It seems like many ‘vibe coders’ don’t realize that they don’t actually have a community around them. This is not about demanding a community, as the article argues about at great length: it's only a polite way to say that many ‘vibe coders’ are annoying, negative net value assholes. Community would ensure that they are not aberrant lone wolves.
  • hespejo 2mo ago
    yes, but as freedom of expression allows 'assholes' to say whatever they want, free software also allows 'assholes' to develop whatever they want - and limiting it while position itself as the lighthouse of freedom makes Codeberg people the actual assholes
    • selfhoster1312 2mo ago
      Freedom of expression does not mean my non-profit has to spend its resources to give you a platform. I'm not a member of Codeberg eV, but i strongly approve their decision. We need more hosts with a mission, especially when it comes to AI and promoting human-crafted resources.
      • Ekaros 2mo ago
        I feel that decades of dumping by VC and advertisement supported platforms have really lead to massive entitlement. People really feel that they should have full right to use any amount of "free" resources for anything. Even if they are the only ones using it. For resource limited platform selecting their focus is just right. It would be like running food bank in some extremely rich neighbourhood. And people living there complaining of not getting caviar and Japanese wagyu...
        • inigyou 2mo ago
          We've gotten used to stuff like GitHub just existing, the same way Windows (up to XP) just exists. If you have a Windows XP computer it keeps working indefinitely. Corporations dumping taught us to expect the same with online services that need constant maintenance.
• p2detar 2mo ago
  It was always an ideology-driven project. LLM-hating now turned into a mandatory religious ritual for places like codeberg. That‘s fine though, one can self-host forgejo, gitea, gogs and so on. In fact the role of github and places like codeberg to form communities is rapidly diminishing. Even for FOSS it makes more sense to host privately than rely on somebody‘s corporate or emotionally-driven platform management.
• animesh 2mo ago
  Just noticed that there is a filter on repositories "Collaborative". Is this indication that we will not be allowed (immediately or eventually) to store either public or private repositories if we are not collaborating with others?
  • selfhoster1312 2mo ago
    Not really. See https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/#how-about-private-repositories%3F https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/#how-about-pri...
    • animesh 2mo ago
      Sorry, but I do not understand. Can I host a repo publicly at least while it is still in initial development stages? For example, I have two repos that have been in development for more than 2 years. I intend to show case them and continue them as open source, but I will probably be the only user for a while. These two predate AI/LLM advancements, and I am pretty anti-AI for non-professional use cases. As someone put it, it is single-user open source repo with low or zero users, and have low commits, and are well below any storage limits.
      • selfhoster1312 2mo ago
        Sure, i linked the docs about private repos specifically. Public repositories of FLOSS are the mission of codeberg, minus slopware and shitcoins (the subject of this thread). I thought the FAQ was pretty clear about that, but if that's not the case, i guess PRs are welcome to improve it.
      • inigyou 2mo ago
        Yes, unless it's obviously something that is only ever usable by you. If they did remove it for some reason anyway, they would contact you first because it isn't spam.
• fedeb95 2mo ago
  That's why I have two remotes origin --> codeberg github --> github I may add others. Redundancy is a good thing.
• Xalutiono 2mo ago
  Hahahah nothing changed on the cryptoside. Its still crazy how much energy bitcoin wastes, how much energy bitcoin steals. Ironic enough, if you know wwere a bitcoin millionar is, its a lot easier to steal from them too.
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    Do share your strategy for stealing from bitcoin millionaires, for entertainment.
• samoit 2mo ago
  I agree 100% with Codeberg.
• anarki8 2mo ago
  Migrated to it around 3 years ago. All I needed was a dependable and simpler (preferably EU-based) GitHub alternative for my FOSS code. Now I am migrating away and stopped my donations to the e.V. Not because I have cryptocurrency-related or vibecoded projects (I don't), but because this sets precedent of introducing vague rules that ban random/unpopular projects. Ironically, I migrated to it from SourceHut because of similar rules introduced there.
  • selfhoster1312 2mo ago
    I don't know you, but my feeling is you have the wrong analysis grid here. This is a non-profit taking a stand for what's right in a world where everything's wrong. The discussion has been ongoing for several years, and the rules introduced are not vague, and do not target random/unpopular projects. I personally have trust in the human community behind codeberg. I understand if you don't. But my question is: why go with a non-profit host if you're not going to get involved in the governance? Of course governance is always happening in a project. For me, that power is shared and decisions are transparent are a criterium to trust codeberg even more.
  • frabcus 2mo ago
    I can't find similar rules at SourceHut, can you point to them? They use Anubis and block LLM scraping, but that sounds useful to me!
    • pelagicAustral 2mo ago
      Drew's antics should be enough of a reason not to be a part of it tbh...
    • anarki8 2mo ago
      Not sure how Anubis plays with SourceHut trying to be js-free, but otherwise it's awesome. SourceHut prohibits anything cryptocurrency- or blockchain-related, so it's less restrictive now, but I didn't like this random opinionated addition to ToS back then and Codeberg felt like a nice alternative.
  • 2mo ago
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• kunley 2mo ago
  Making decisions based on distinguishing A from B is a legit thing to do. Complaining that it's "telling what's right and wrong" is a strawman argument IMO. It's about choices: they made a choice and many users are/will be joufully making the compatible choice.
• Good4boothee 2mo ago
  [dead]
• jrflowers 2mo ago
  TLDR; ~1900 words about how they wish Codeberg spent their time and money supporting crypto projects and how they were owed a warning as a free user that anybody was even considering thinking about rules about how they spend time and money on supporting crypto projects
• mschuster91 2mo ago
  > Once a platform writes into its terms that an entire category “harms its reputation” and can be removed on that basis, the deciding factor stops being whether the code is legal, or functional, or useful, and becomes whether it aligns with a position the platform has taken. The problem in here is German laws, particularly stuff like the "Störerhaftung", and what Codeberg wants is a fast avenue to yeet projects that cause an undue amount of trouble for a non-profit organization. > The decisions did go through Codeberg’s own Assembly 2026, which is more process than most platforms bother with, and yet as an ordinary user I found out about it the way probably most people else did, through a dark blue banner at the top of the site on the day it was already settled. You're an ordinary user, not a member of Codeberg e.V., the people running the show. Want to take part in the governance of the association, join in.
  • RicoElectrico 2mo ago
    The question is why Codeberg needs to be stationed in Germany known for its goofy laws at every corner.
    • mschuster91 2mo ago
      Germany may have goofy laws but a very stable and predictable political environment. That is why there is a long and rich history here - KDE e.V, the ones who run the same-name Linux desktop, SuSE, The Document Foundation (LibreOffice), FSF's European branch, CCC, Open Knowledge Foundation, Open Search Foundation... and that's just the most prominent ones. In general, these rules have been known for a very long time, boiled down it is "don't be a dick and don't allow others to use your property to be a dick" in law. Of course, for Americans who are used to acting like dicks with impunity towards each other and everyone else, this being coded in law is anathema.
      • throwayay4929 2mo ago
        In Germany you can't leave a 3 star review saying "it's just ok" for a restaurant because the owner can sue Google for defamation so Google just removes your review[0]. "Politicians send SWAT teams to the homes of people, famously in the case of Andy Grote, where someone replied "you're such a dick" to one of Grote's tweets. Grote reported this to the police, the attorney general figured out who the poster was, and sent a SWAT team (6 police officers!) to confiscate all their electronic devices. This is not an isolated case; this happens frequently." Nah mate, Germans are famously thin skinned and have built an authoritarian state to protect their feelings. [0]: https://x.com/eigen_moomin/status/2077471686295957749 https://x.com/eigen_moomin/status/2077471686295957749
• fuglede_ 2mo ago
  The new terms [0] say “You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools […]. Such projects having an unclear copyright status […]” So okay, if you're concerned about the risk of liability from unclear copyright status, I suppose that's fine, but then why the “mostly”? It's not like the copyright status becomes less unclear by you supplementing with 50% hand-written code. [0] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/96fac426a32d1ba91ff879366d59bf1af54080c2 https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/96fac426a32d1ba91ff...
  • graemep 2mo ago
    Its not the real reason. Copyright law varies with jurisdiction, is not simply if its AI written its not covered" anywhere AFAIK, and the and the reasons given in the blog post do have anything to do with copyright. There is a certain amount of fuzzy thinking, but I think what is significant about this is that Codeberg is not a neutral place for FOSS software. It is a place for FOSS that Codeberg considers good - so no LLM code, no crypto related code, and no doubt more to come. I think it feels odd to people because its a different set of values to FOSS licences which are designed to be apolitical and neutral - a software license that stated that the software could not be used for crypto or in LLM projects would not be a FOSS license.
    • hedora 2mo ago
      The most coherent argument I have heard is that LLM output might not be copyrightable. This matches what most courts have said, and is the assumption the entire industry is working under. There are probably eventually going to be cases where the LLM copies something verbatim, and then the courts will have to come up with some refinement to their tests. The legal exposure for this for codeberg is basically zero in the US, thanks to the DMCA. So, their "copyright status is unclear" stance seems to be saying "it is unclear if the contributor can copyright the code, or if it cannot be copyrighted", but that argument does not make any sense: "Not copyrightable" means "no one has a right to enforce a copyright on this". If that is their objection, they need to run scrubs for public domain works + delete those too. God help them if they want to host old UNIX software. Unless someone has renewed the copyrights on stuff written before 1979, the copyright has already lapse, making it "not copyrightable". If, alternatively, they're worried about inadvertent plagiarism, then they already have to have mechanisms to deal with intentional plagiarism, so no action is required. If they're trying to impose their values on users by micromanaging acceptable use of third parties' computers, well, I agree: That's explicitly in violation of the definition of Free and Open Source software, so they're basically just ignoring their non-profit mission statement.
• woodpanel 2mo ago
  > the one part I moved there for, namely the “freedom” part Being from Germany I wondered from day-one how the project's "freedom"-promise ("We celebrate free culture, openness") would eventually work out, because lets face it, Germany is not a free-spech crazed country, even less so are its tech-people and especially not the culture in Berlin. So the idea of a Berlin-based e.V. full of German sysadmins voting on said "freedom" made this LLM-crypto-kerfuffle exactly as surprising as raw milk spoiling fast in sunshine.
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    As long as you don't insult someone or support Palestine it shouldn't be a problem. German speech law is strict, but predictable. Although there was originally no law against supporting Palestine - it was a reinterpretation of the anti-Nazi laws - I believe they've now made it a law.
    • woodpanel 2mo ago
      The text of the law is fine. But then there is the application of it. And the jurisprudence, ie. the stubbornness with which courts are defending it. But anyways, we're not talking about free speech laws, we're talking about an association, a club (ie. "e.V.") where things get decided according to majority vote. That's where "German Speech law" doesn't apply, but culture does. "e.V."s are basically German offline versions of reddit. And if you believe it when a subreddit run by German SysAdmins promises you to be "free and open" – well, i got a bridge to sell to you.
• maeln 2mo ago
  What make Codeberg a legitimate open-source, community driven project is that finally it has some drama ! In all seriousness, I think it's fine to have Codeberg be an opinionated forge. It's a community project, paid for by the community (mostly), at the end of the day the community decide on what they wanna host. Criticism can be addressed about the organization of the vote, and I hope they will ! In any case, if they are not, it will become one of those project that slowly bleed contributor until only a small core of die-hard supported stays, and everybody else has moved on. I think it is just that people where very naïve about what Codeberg was going to be. Github has their own incentive about who they want to work with, what feature they develop, etc. Codeberg, as a real organization, made up of real people, operating in the real world, is also not free of incentive. It was never going to be this perfectly fine neutral platform for everyone. If you want the freedom to do whatever you want (in you own limitation due to the jurisdiction that apply to you), you have to do it yourself.
• sreekanth850 2mo ago
  Instead of banning all LLM based repositories, they could introduce rules to discourage one shot code dumps. For example, if a repository remains inactive for more than a year, with no commits or other activity, the owner could receive a warning before the repository is removed. I’m seeing hundreds of LLM generated repositories that are published once and then abandoned with no any activity further
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    I think their humans are reviewing the repositories that are created. This is probably strange to Americans accustomed to everything being an automated process at a faceless corporation.
• qpe0 2mo ago
  Software should never be about politics, hence I never joined Codeberg, and I'm glad I didn't. But I have to say there's some pretty cool stuff there.
  • fnord123 2mo ago
    Software has always been political. From the big P political when PGP was banned from export from the US in the 90s, to the small p political where you can fix the software running on your own machine (akin to filling in the potholes on main street).
• pelasaco 2mo ago
  > Codeberg banning projects that are predominantly LLM-driven. I can only imagine the backlash if GitHub adopted the same policy. btw it was clear that this would come, and it was just a matter of time, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48087405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48087405 "People used GitHub's free infrastructure for over a decade without complaining. Now AI-generated spam and massive amounts of low-quality code are increasing costs everywhere, and suddenly GitHub is the bad guy for acting like a business. Criticizing centralization is fair, but pretending GitHub gave nothing to open source is just dishonest. Alternatives today, are probably going to be flooded by the low-quality AI generated code tomorrow..."
• thejosh 2mo ago
  I would love to use something that isn't GitHub for code hosting. Codeberg sounds great, but from using it day-to-day, it's really slow sometimes, and frequently times out (from Perth, AU, if it matters). This is not just the SSH protocol for git pushes, but also for browsing. (I do have a self-hosted forgejo (came from gitea), it's great, Postgres database backs up, files are easy to backup, it's also git so I can just mirror it elsewhere as well.). I love their self-hosted runners is super simple to host. Bit random, but for code search, does anyone have any recommendations? My current process is to just `git clone <REPO>` onto my server, then use ripgrep (Can't beat good ol' plain text search). The result is that this is hundreds of GB -- I like to clone everything I use, dependencies etc, to then be able to look at source code. (I use quite a few languages/ecosystems, and sometimes reading the source code is the best way to figure something out). I've tried Sourcebot (just for the code search, I don't care about "MCP"/"AI") etc, but was wondering if anyone has recommendations. GitHubs code search is great, but it doesn't find everything, and it is also incredibly rate limited (annoying when trying to narrow something down, and you then get rate limited). I use this when trying to figure out random Apple issues - someone somewhere has figured it out usually.
  • boyter 2mo ago
    Tooting my own horn here for search but give https://github.com/boyter/cs https://github.com/boyter/cs a go. You can have a http server up if you like (even modify the templates) and have it sync your repos for you on a schedule you define. Let me know if it fails in some area and I’ll fix it.
    • thejosh 2mo ago
      Will give it a go! Thanks for tooting! You've just made my afternoon!
  • qweqwe14 2mo ago
    You can just self-host GitLab CE and use self-hosted ElasticSearch integration to set up code search. I really don't understand the point of Forgejo, sounds like making your life harder
• 0dayz 2mo ago
  I think it's mostly a poorly worded change, with odd assertions that one can interpret as "why do you need x feature made for your blog made by Ai just use notepad and apache server for your blog". The resource point is fair enough but as the blog post says they can make it a paid service for llm folks. I think it's a bit an
• chmod775 2mo ago
  Keeping up with this stuff is for people who define their identity through virtue signalling and whatever personality trait they have decided to make the problem of everyone around them. Let them have their little corner of the internet and just stay away. There's plenty of alternatives run by people who don't feel the need to bring their personal baggage into a cooperative environment.
  • deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  • layer8 2mo ago
    What are these plentiful alternatives? SourceHut also comes with “personal baggage”.
    • Hendrikto 2mo ago
      It really is a shame Drew is so opinionated and dogmatic. I like most of his work, but his politics make Source Hut too shaky of a foundation to build on.
      • inigyou 2mo ago
        Amuses me that Codeberg and Sourcehut have the same naming scheme. What's next - SLoCbarn? Header Haven? Function City?
        • queenkjuul 2mo ago
          Repohaus
    • Zambyte 2mo ago
      Just host your own git server, it's an afternoon project. Use other forges as mirrors.
• periphery 2mo ago
  I did when I first saw the change. Then I decided to do something about it and spent the day moving my stuff to my own self hosted Forgejo instance. Now Codeberg is free to do as it wants as am I.
• GaryBluto 2mo ago
  If you wants to make their own forge where LLM-assisted work is prohibited, go ahead. Waiting for people to go all-in on your service and then kicking them out however is frankly rotten thing to do; but entirely expected of Codeberg, which is more a political community than a useful forge.
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    Why did you think they wanted everyone to go all-in? They have always been opinionated.
• jraph 2mo ago
  > We now even have people like Linus Torvalds making the fairly reasonable argument that an LLM is just a tool, and “clearly a useful one” I don't think this argument is reasonable at all. Many are concerned about the environmental and societal impacts of LLMs, there are many ethical concerns around them as well, there are concerns that they could cause a bubble burst / a major economical crisis. Regardless your opinion on all these things, that's quite the undertaking for "just a tool"! This is unheard of for something like a hammer, for instance. > If the maintainer of the largest and most consequential open-source project on the planet can treat LLMs as a tool to be judged on its results rather than a category to be banned on sight, a backyard code forge can manage the same Linus Torvalds can be wrong at times, like anyone else. It's a shame an authority like Linus Torvalds shared this opinion, now people are taking it even more seriously. He considers technical merit above all else, even above what allows "technique" to exist in the first place. He always have. It might have helped a lot in the success of Linux, but I still think this is deeply flawed. Whether you love, or hate, or don't care about LLMs, they are not "just a tool".
• sylware 2mo ago
  I don't recall exactly which one has javascript mandatory (namely is gated with 'whatwg cartel' web engines): this very codeberg or sourcehut?
• Hendrikto 2mo ago
  > a hub built around “free software” is now telling its users which kinds of software are deemed good and which are not, and that is closer to censorship than it might seem. Once a platform writes into its terms that an entire category “harms its reputation” and can be removed on that basis, the deciding factor stops being whether the code is legal, or functional, or useful, and becomes whether it aligns with a position the platform has taken. To me, this is the key point: Service providers should be neutral. Especially ones claiming to be free as in freedom. Only get involved insofar as it is required by law, and stay out of it otherwise. Individuals can have their opinions and biases, but keep them out of the platforms.
  • witx 2mo ago
    Providers should host whatever they feel like hosting. Models were nost likely trained on stolen content, so not allowing vibecoded is taking a stance in favour of free software. You people keep forgetting that free software is inherintly political and so platforms are more than wellcome of taking a stance. If you don't like don't use it. Quite simple
    • Hendrikto 2mo ago
      Free software is about freedom and liberty. Sure, you can decide to prohibit certain use cases. That is absolutely legal and absolutely okay to do. But it makes you non-neutral and non-free.
      • Ekaros 2mo ago
        Just because you are making free software doesn't mean you should get everything for free.
        • Hendrikto 2mo ago
          I have made it VERY clear that I am talking about FREEdom, not the price. I have to assume your comment is in bad faith.
      • 2mo ago
• BadBadJellyBean 2mo ago
  The problem I see with the change in their rules is that they have created an unenforceable or worse arbitrarily enforced rule. There is no sure way to identify LLM code. I could write a project by hand with all the GPT "mannerisms" for fun. I could sign my commits with "Co-Authored-By: Claude" because my cat's name is Claude and I find it funny. Now this rule will either be never applied or when it's applied it will be an arbitrary decision made with mostly inconclusive "evidence". This is not a good way to write rules. Write rules based on merit. Excessive data usage or licensing problems might come to mind. These things are measurable. Otherwise it's really just posturing.
  • mexicocitinluez 2mo ago
    Also, the there are hundreds of ways to use these tools. From semi-intelligent autocomplete to fully agent-driven. Where's the line? What if I had an LLM clean up a fairly long stored procedure? Is that single action now forbidding me from ever uploading that code base to Codeberg? What if no other part of my code was written using LLMs? > Now this rule will either be never applied or when it's applied it will be an arbitrary decision made with mostly inconclusive "evidence". Or people just lie. Which is the whole problem with not having a strong way to determine code's origin. And it's also a tad ridiculous because if done correctly, the seams between my thoughts and those of the agent shouldn't be apparent. If it's utilizing existing patterns in my codebase that I've written by hand, then you wouldn't even know.
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    Do the other rules bother you the same way? Like the one about racial discrimination? I mean, there's no surefire way to identify racial discrimination.
    • BadBadJellyBean 2mo ago
      Racial discrimination can have fringe cases but is at least something you can often clearly see. You can not detect the intention but you can often see the outcome. But yes. Other rules that are unenforceable without reading tea leaves are also a problem.
• astrobe_ 2mo ago
  Codeberg already had relatively strong opinions before that; their Terms of Use also says: "the right to use the content for any purpose, including both commercial and non-commercial purposes" "Note, however, that the Creative Commons licences with Non-Commercial (NC) or No Derivatives (ND) restrictions are not licences for free cultural works and thus do not fulfil the licensing requirement" So yes, "the deciding factor stops being whether the code is legal, or functional, or useful, and becomes whether it aligns with a position the platform has taken", nothing really new actually. IMHO, deciding to migrate because of a disagreement that doesn't have practical consequences on the author is a bit of an overreaction. It is not, by the way, a full ban on LLM, as the clause says mostly LLM-generated, a term that has been criticized for its vagueness in other places, but that does leaves some room for thoughtful use. But why stop using a service we are satisfied with because of virtual future other decisions that might or might not affect us? It's like if people left their country before the candidate for president they fear, is even elected.
  • Defletter 2mo ago
    It's always amusing to see people concern troll about slippery slopes as if Codeberg didn't already have requirements (some vibes based) for the repositories they host. But people hate change and will knee-jerk react to announcements like these. It reminds me of the absolute meltdowns people have over Rust in Linux (remember the hysteria when Rust became a hard dependency for apt?).
    • astrobe_ 2mo ago
      > people hate change Not related, but this is an assumption one should automatically reject as soon as it comes to mind. People do like change, when it is for the better. People have happily moved from SVN to Git, from Vi to Neovim, from Coke to Pepsi (find better examples yourself) etc... People may be emotional about change, but they are not stubborn (generally). Usually they just don't perceive the benefits of the new thing (or they are outweighed by the drawbacks for them). Sometimes "better" has a subjective part that you can't argue about, so you have to "agree to disagree". But it's better to disagree on an opinion than to assume that they don't like change.
• swiftcoder 2mo ago
  The CSS-powered blink tag at the end is like a flashbang from the late 90s
• ErroneousBosh 2mo ago
  > the deciding factor stops being whether the code is legal, or functional, or useful, and becomes whether it aligns with a position the platform has taken Yes, and? I don't want you wearing football shirts in my pub. People wearing football shirts tend to cause trouble because someone who likes a different colour sees the shirt and kicks off. Leave it outside my pub. People need to understand that there's a difference between "You're not allowed to do that" and "You're not allowed to do that *here*, because this is my house and my rules".
• nekusar 2mo ago
  Yep, cause all of the LLM hatred is a proxy for end-stage capitalism and a technofeudalist overlay across sympathetic governments. And yeah, fighting against the worst that capitalism has to offer is a laudable fight. But LLMs, especially Chinese open weights ones offer powerful tools we can use in our fight, as aligned interests of socialists, communists, and anarchists. Codeberg people who were permitted to vote (700 out of 70000 repo maintainers) instead decided to fight the proxy (llm) and not the actual horrible (capitalists). And of course, that battle is neatly impossible to even define externally. Its a game of purity whack-a-mole with Codeberg admins playing the SCOTUS obscenity game of "I'll know it when I see it".
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• andsoitis 2mo ago
  Are you making decisions based on principles that are crafted with the goal of CHANGING the world? Or are you making decisions based on principles that are crafted to NAVIGATE a dynamic, fuzzy, ever-changing world?
• ilumanty 2mo ago
  Exactly what you would expect from a German non-profit.
• MrBuddyCasino 2mo ago
  Jim Goad wrote about this. His target was the Bay Area crowd, but Berlin is the same: „ Among most humans, the need for social approval seems stronger than the desire to know the truth. Rejected by the Überclique, the Bay Aryans form cliques of their own. Blind puppies in a cardboard box, they crawl over each other groping for "scene" status. So weak as individuals, they truly believe that "scene" status is a worthwhile goal. They howl about "fighting fascism," yet they exhibit a strong urge to feel part of some "community," which is the first flash of the fascist impulse. You all need a crowd. You all need a movement. You need to be surrounded by the wool of a million other sheep before you finally feel warm. You all have social consciences because you're zeros as individuals. Your compassion for others is ironically founded on your own self-hatred. You swim with "the movement" because you're lost on your own.“ https://www.jimgoad.net/bayaryan.html https://www.jimgoad.net/bayaryan.html
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    This would be something you'd post if you held opinions that were subject to severe social disapproval.
• al_be_back 2mo ago
  I agree with Codeberg, I think they're arguing for some sort of AI Code-Gen Fair Use policy. My take: If ai generated the code, let ai pay for it, unless it has been proved worth it's upkeep. Basically, show me some sort of: AI code-gen proof of work (or proof of worth, some mechanism), then you're in. Automation at ai-scale are very expensive, just look at the trillions of USD being spent by ai companies. And let's not forget, that the rest of us don't have those levels of funding. And neither do non-profits like Codeberg i'm guessing. And some more, i'm not even considering security issues, where for instance ai code-gen turns on hosting/platform providers (similar to chapgpt incident on hugginfaces). even if the sandbox proves resilient, the code is parasitic in nature or behaves like a virus.
• hedora 2mo ago
  https://archive.is/FfZ8x https://archive.is/FfZ8x (Site's down for me)
• hedora 2mo ago
  So, I guess Codeberg doesn't meet the free software bar any more. The FSF defines four freedoms, and they are all pretty clearly being violated by the no LLM policy. They're blocking people based on how they use codeberg (freedom 0), preventing less experienced users from improving / modifying code (freedom 1), based on an argument that you can modify software, but only how they tell you to, and certainly not with an LLM (freedom 2), and of course they are blocking a distribution channel based on these criteria (freedom 3). In summary: A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical. I guess no SaaS meets the bar in absolute terms, but they've intentionally and significantly lowered the bar with these decisions. I'm happy they did this before I bothered to migrate. Does anyone know of a good alternative to Forgejo? I was thinking of self hosting, but now I just want nothing to do with this organization. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms
  • treyd 2mo ago
    Codeberg is a service, not software. If we applied this standard then Codeberg would already have been in violation of the 4 Freedoms because they forbid distribution of CSAM (I would hope). Forgejo is unaffected by this because it's the software not the service and is not subject to the service's terms of service. You're misunderstanding the scope of this policy change.
    • hedora 2mo ago
      I tried to address this when I pointed out no SaaS meets the bar in absolute terms, and the FSF also addressed it with the word "adequately". The policy change means that some free software projects are no longer welcome on codeberg, specifically because those projects take a stronger stance towards protecting free software than codeberg. What am I misunderstanding? Why should I trust them as stewards of forgejo?
      • inigyou 2mo ago
• jvanveen 2mo ago
  Install Forgejo and move on...
• tonymet 2mo ago
  I used to think that good governance made good policy, but I now realize that it’s used to justify the people making the policy. So all that really matters is picking the right people to make the policy . In this case, you seem to have a robust democratic process, with a not for profit board, membership, voting rights and more. Meanwhile GitHub had a better policy despite having the worst possible governance model from an open source perspective (it was a corporation, and likely mostly top down for most of its meaningful development). But thankfully GitHub was full of great people for the first 15 years or so.
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• overgard 2mo ago
  I don't see why anyone is shocked that people would want to build a community that keeps out vibe coders and crypto bros. There are plenty of options, who cares?
• duxup 2mo ago
  It’s interesting how many revolutions and even small efforts surrounding the concept of freedom very quickly go from “freedom” to “no actually I mean freedom for things I like”. It’s a constant pattern. Principles are hard I guess.
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    I know. So many platforms don't provide freedom for CSAM.
    • duxup 2mo ago
      I think there is space in “things that are illegal / harm” and other choices. Freedom in general is always a compromise to some extent.
      • inigyou 2mo ago
        It's interesting how your concept of freedom very quickly went from “freedom” to “no actually I mean freedom for things I like”. Principles are hard, I guess.
        • duxup 2mo ago
          Naw most people have concepts about freedom and harming others like you describe.
          • inigyou 2mo ago
            "no actually I mean freedom for the things most people like"?
            • duxup 2mo ago
              I mean freedom that doesn’t violate other people’s freedoms, like your CSAM example.
• MetroWind 2mo ago
  I don't understand why people still bother with these kind of choices anymore. Why not just write your own service and self-host? I just vibed a git hosting thing and it has been running fine for some months.
• exiguus 2mo ago
  When I read the issues thread on Codeberg, it reaffirmed my decision to self-host my Git repositories and mirror them to GitHub, GitLab, and Codeberg. At the time, I chose this approach because Codeberg already had its "no private repos" rule in place. I know they don't ban all private repos, but still, I wonder: Did they have bad experiences with private repos, LLMs, or crypto projects? Or is this a preemptive measure? However, Github and Others can also ban or delete my stuff anytime. But the feeling is a different. Because now I'm thinking what's next? Tolerance is a beautiful thing, but it can also be painful. Perhaps, in general, it's better to make individual decisions rather than relying on sweeping statements. Banning LLMs and crypto sounds more like a move made by a fearful, angry person and has little to do with openness.
  • exiguus 2mo ago
    The facts I was missing (also in the article): The changes made by Codeberg e.V. are: First: > 7. You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5). Second: > - Content that harms the reputation of Codeberg, such as cryptocurrency related projects. Now, I know them. IC no issue.
• Amekedl 2mo ago
  It's way overblown... The "anti LLM" or "no AI" clause is really more a "covering all ass" clause. If you want to improve Forgejo and have that AI PR; you better clean it up of all traces - resulting in a PR that is likely neat and going to be merged. I see no issue with that. It simply enforces a pace and process that is very befitting and in my opinion mandatory for such a central system they're maintaining.
• pjjpo 2mo ago
  I have seen so much governance weirdness from Codeberg over the years that it isn't even on the radar to migrate to. GitHub has gotten less stable, I wouldn't mind an alternative, but Codeberg just wouldn't ever be that. To be fair I am just on the sidelines seeing net commentary so it may not be a fair take but it doesn't change that point. Do people know Codeberg well and migrate to it anyways, or they just don't know? If the former, wondering what gets you to that point.
• cyberinfern0 2mo ago
  On tab change dynamic title update is crazy xD
• _the_inflator 2mo ago
  I understand Codeberg's standpoint. From their point of view I think it is only reasonable to sticking to your guns as well as mentioning, that at the end of the day there is no free lunch and LLM coding may be bloat to them. I know the European scene since the 80th and know, that all projects are not what the rest of world think they are: free, and an alternative to anything that is US based. European software devs are activists in the old-school meaning. In the 80th, they were crackers, hackers, and they looked for likeminded people. BTX scandal is only for very old veterans, as well as von Gravenreuth or Highscore. I was part of the C64, Amiga scene and still have many friends their. Nevertheless we have very different attitudes today. Without any irony I finally hope that people finally value that is provided by GitHub or other services from the Valley. Trashing them or thinking, you just needed to host a service outside the US makes it a viable option is naiv. I respect EU's and European devs' decisions, but I would never ever rely on them. I love the US and happy to be almost 100% not using European services. Yes it reads "Software development, but free! Codeberg is a non-profit, community-led effort..." but you didn't know Germans or the fineprint. Codeberg is organized as "eingetragener Verein" and here you have the basis for what is considered free: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/en/bylaws.md https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/en/bylaws.... Folks, this is politics, this is power struggle, this is what Germans call "Grabenkämpfe". If you aren't used to the lifestyle, you won't understand nor enjoy the ride. I build an extremely successfully eV myself which still lives and thrives for 30 years now - without me. Value GitHub, stay away from European "alternatives". They aren't.
• penciltwirler 2mo ago
  Dumb question, but how do they know if a codebase is actually written by an LLM? I know that sometimes code agents write "Co-authored by" in the commit messages, but this is something you can over-write.
• hotpatato 2mo ago
  This is the german way, rule by setting the rules.
• someguyornotidk 2mo ago
  The problem with slippery slopes is that you never stop midway. Banning any form of legal, libre software, shows that you are not floss friendly and I do not want to host my code with organizations like yours. I dropped sourcehut when they banned cryptocurrency software and today I drop you. Looks like I'm going back to self-hosting and accepting patches via email.