9 ms·

Codeberg Divides

144 points by ashdnazg 2mo ago

infecto 2mo ago
It is a bad rule. Their community and their choice but I hope we get some fresh options in the open source universe.
kccqzy 2mo ago
I don’t even mind forges taking a stance on AI. That’s fine. But I agree with Armin Ronacher here: banning projects that “mostly consist of code written by generative AI tools” is like the infamous Supreme Court “I know it when I see it” line. Yes of course I know a project mostly written by generative AI when I see it.
- Hendrikto 2mo ago
  Exactly. > The line is open to interpretation precisely where it needs to be enforceable. It is way too arbitrary and open to interpretation and biases.
  - kps 2mo ago
    “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”
stock_toaster 2mo ago
codefloe[1] also runs forgejo. [1]: https://codefloe.com/ https://codefloe.com/
- tcmart14 2mo ago
  My only complaint about their site is that it mentions a generous free tier, but I have no way to seeing what exactly that free tier is. Edit: Found it, but it wasn't obvious the navigation path to it. Would be nice if "free tier" on their home page was a link where it was there and clear.
Hendrikto 2mo ago
Fully agree. I am against AI slop, LLM overhyping, and cryto scams, as much as anybody, however: > the main property I need from infrastructure [is for] it to be predictable, dependable, and reasonably neutral towards the legal Open Source software hosted on it. I do not like to build on a foundation that could be ripped away from under my feet at any moment for arbitrary reasons.
- jalev 2mo ago
  > I do not like to build on a foundation that could be ripped away from under my feet at any moment for arbitrary reasons. Do you only build and publish software in a vacuum running on hardware you own? There is no online community in the western hemisphere that isn't subject to any kind of arbitrariness, be it internal (community, like here) or external (legal or infrastructurally, like on github).
  - Hendrikto 2mo ago
    Yes, but the world is not black and white. It’s all shades of gray. Codeberg just darkened their shade quite a bit.
dmitrygr 2mo ago
> There are serious questions about copyright, labor, energy use, slop, and maintainers drowning in generated contributions. But Way to not at all engage with any of that and just go on your merry way... Sure, if you fail to acknowledge that the other side has valid points, it is easy to act like you're completely right and they are morons, and we all need to Kumbaya together, and forget about their views.
- aclindsa 2mo ago
  The way I read the article was not that the author disagrees with the concerns you mention, but instead that they believe Codeberg's recent actions fail to address these underlying concerns while adding uncertainty for users of their platform (which they fear will ultimately hurt codeberg). To me, it reads as a call for further discussion and clarification rather than a dismissal.
ItsABytecode 2mo ago
Codeberg going down the path of Blueskyification
- dist-epoch 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - znpy 2mo ago
    Yeah something i noticed is that the richer the area is the more disconnected from reality they are. LLMs are here to stay. The genie’s out of the lamp. Get over it.
    - archagon 2mo ago
      No, people aren't going to get over it. Prepare to adjust your expectations.
      - znpy 2mo ago
        You’re going to be sorely disappointed
    - 83642736392 2mo ago
      [flagged]
- nohell 2mo ago
  [dead]
- himata4113 2mo ago
  At the start bluesky was actually pretty nice, but now it's just this weird bubble where disagreements don't exist and when I checked out like a month ago there was just so much damn p***.
  - eviks 2mo ago
Arainach 2mo ago
> But these tools are also becoming part of how software is made. The Open Source world needs to figure out how to engage with that future, not just divide into camps. No. They don't. This isn't a "you just have to deal". You can say no. It's OK to decide that it's not worth the smaller amount of positives to deal with the massive amount of negatives. If you disagree, start your own community.
Zsfe510asG 2mo ago
I see. We should not divide into camps so the Austrians can sell their AI startups. The only people dividing and ruining open source are those paid for it by AI companies. Sometimes indirectly, like NumPy through its various sponsors. Then suddenly a bureaucrat appears on a mailing list or elsewhere and announces that AI contributions need to be allowed.
TheJoYo 2mo ago
I'd rather have a way to quickly ID what deltas were generated and which were not but that will never happen if it becomes a weapon to ban a project.
pelasaco 2mo ago
[flagged]
- mariusor 2mo ago
  Typical hn comment: xenophobia, hyperbole, wishful thinking, missing the point, cynicism and cheap sarcasm. You managed to hit all of them. Congrats.
  - pelasaco 2mo ago
    I love it. How can it be seem as xenophobia, if I am from Berlin? From the dictionary: "Xenophobia refers to the irrational fear or dislike of people from different countries or cultures, often resulting in discrimination and social exclusion." I guess you are exactly part of the problem.
    - mariusor 2mo ago
      OK, like I'm supposed to guess that it's not xenophobia, it's the fabled German sense of humour instead. Saying hateful things is not any better if you're directing it at the people around you. You got the gist of what I was saying, please don't pretend otherwise.
      - pelasaco 2mo ago
        that is your issue. You shouldn't guess if you are accusing someone of something.. but that's how it goes today right? Feeling > Facts...
- sajithdilshan 2mo ago
  [flagged]
neogodless 2mo ago
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635 Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs (blog.codeberg.org) 1 day ago, 144 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386 Codeberg bans vibe coded projects (codeberg.org/codeberg) 2 days ago, 279 comments
- dang 2mo ago
  Thanks! Macroexpanded: Ah, the Codeberg Drama - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49034928 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49034928 - July 2026 (51 comments) I regret migrating to Codeberg - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49021856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49021856 - July 2026 (474 comments) Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635 - July 2026 (144 comments) Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015588 - July 2026 (638 comments) Codeberg: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003465 - July 2026 (77 comments) Codeberg bans vibe coded projects - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386 - July 2026 (279 comments)
CodesInChaos 2mo ago
I think introducing unpredictable new prohibitions is a much bigger problem than the specific bans on cryptocurrency or AI written code. Especially when it leads to existing code becoming unavailable and doesn't just ban new contributions violating the rules.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  They weren't exactly unpredictable. People didn't predict it because they're used to dealing with faceless machine platforms instead of human platforms. GitHub bans projects rarely, and when it does, it's without any warning or rule change.
cmrdporcupine 2mo ago
Agree substantially here, as I said elsewhere: the honest and respectful answer from the Codeberg community would have been: add resource limits, quotas, and a reviewed application form for new projects. And maybe a statement that: Pre-existing clearly "vibe coded" projects providing little value to the community may be subject to review. Our resources are limited. Don't abuse them. Instead it got framed in moralistic terms in many places, the actual voting process actively resisted all calls for clarification ("if you're a vibe coder you'll know, so stop trying to ask for clarification", the tone in online forums became nasty, and the result is both ambiguous and culturally poisoned and I decided to move my project ("good riddance!" call out the victors, "we got one of them!") I do think the one substantial argument that was made through the threads, was around IP ownership laws. However I remain unconvinced. Frankly if there's anywhere where I would most like to see AI generated work -- which is frankly based on weights generated from the broad and indiscriminate harvesting of other people's works -- is in copylefted software that takes the distillations of the efforts of the community and makes it available as free software with free software protections. I understand not everyone shares that opinion, and they're welcome to different interpretations. Like the author of the article I'm saddened to see this split. I am honestly curious to see where we are in 2-3 years on this topic.
- kakonako 2mo ago
  > Frankly if there's anywhere where I would most like to see AI generated work -- which is frankly based on weights generated from the broad and indiscriminate harvesting of other people's works -- is in copylefted software that takes the distillations of the efforts of the community and makes it available as free software with free software protections. I agree wholeheartedly with this. We have large corporations stealing work left right and center. Lets utilise that to our benefit and make open and free versions of all software. The crux is that to do that each individual has to pay currency to use this tool. Maybe there is a place for collectives to collect money and to utilise llms to free software. (What strange times we live in.) A slight aside, open source lived and breathed the idea of ownership of software, be that a council, a handful of committed maintainers, a BDFL and all things in between and adjacent. There isn't really much wrong with "vibe coded" software, the issue seems to be owning that software. Things feels fundamentally more fluid, based on specs and more importantly tests that actually define the features that the software is expected to perform. Not ownership, but more like a contract.
_def 2mo ago
> It can choose to be a smaller community with a stronger political identity, but that is a different ambition from being a broad and dependable European alternative to GitHub. Wrong category. It doesn't want to. It's not a company. Might as well act on their beliefs. Devs are so spoiled with free CI, running nonsensical workflows all the time for free. Imagine that multiplied by magnitudes thanks to AI. Just a waste of resources.
- pelasaco 2mo ago
  Devs are so spoiled. They first tried to sell themselves as morally better than GitHub, and now the spoiled devs ban who uses AI..
  - lowsong 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - skinfaxi 2mo ago
      Without additional explanation this reads like flamebait.
      - lowsong 2mo ago
        Flippant maybe, but not bait. AI is many things, and a moral choice is one of them. Codeberg's stance isn't a moral one as much as a technical one, but there is a very strong argument that the use of AI is inherently immoral.
        deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
        skeledrew 2mo ago
        > there is a very strong argument that the use of AI is inherently immoral Do say more.
  - 2mo ago
free_bip 2mo ago
I think this move by Codeberg is lowkey genius. They're trying to build a community based on a set of shared values. Those who disagree with those values are now self-selecting out of the Codeberg community, which is exactly the point of passing these kinds of resolutions. The fact that the rule is open for interpretation means that they can effectively shut down malicious actors (i.e those who intentionally misrepresent the degree of AI assistance in writing their code) before they become a problem. It becomes an exercise in judgement instead of a potentially exploitable/loophole-able set of hard and fast rules. There's no issue with this. This isn't the supreme court. Your income is not on the line. It's a code hosting repository. Go to GitHub if it bothers you. Only time will tell if this set of values holds up. Personally, I think they will, and that the rules will end up being less strict than people are making them out to be, and that relatively few projects will be removed from the platform.
- aliasxneo 2mo ago
  Based on this precedence, if I'm accepted into the community today, how would I know I'll be accepted tomorrow? If you're literally just using Codeberg as a mirror, then sure, it doesn't really matter much. But like you said, that's not what they are building. They want people to invest in the community. So now, as an investor of my hard-earned free time, I'm faced with the question on whether all my investment can go up in flames on the whims of a shadow group.
  - nmz 2mo ago
    1. This precedence is based on law or on the abscence of it. 2. Slippery slope fallacy. 3. Anarchy or Tyranny are not the only modes of operation. -- See point 2
  - free_bip 2mo ago
    You are effectively saying you do not trust the judgement of the community to accept you long term. Why is that? Is it because you believe there would be a new policy that would exclude your workflow? What would such a policy be? Do you really, reasonably believe it would be implemented "tomorrow"? Do you think adapting to such a policy would be unreasonable? Or is it because you don't trust the judgement of the people enforcing these new rules? If not one of the two, what is the reason? The point I'm trying to make here is that this just sounds like a slippery slope argument. If you don't have a concrete reason to believe you won't be welcome "tomorrow" then my mind has not been changed.
ok123456 2mo ago
So are they going to have "AI" police this? Heuristics about check-in size and scope are still AI, albeit "classical AI."
- 8organicbits 2mo ago
  The low hanging fruit are claude.md, commits co-authored by Copilot, etc.
- chasd00 2mo ago
  on April 1 next year don't be surprised when lots of repositories come out with "surprise! i was AI all along". How are they ever going to know? Seems like a prompt like "remove all traces from this code that it was generated using AI" would one shot the whole repo and make it virtually impossible to justifiably claim it was vibecoded.
ralph84 2mo ago
That's the beauty of the internet, everyone can find their space. Even the buggy whip makers.
nottorp 2mo ago
> Since I want GitHub to face competition I have thoughts. Github allows private repos, organization access control etc. I don't see how Codeberg is competition.
- delfinom 2mo ago
  Codeberg was competition for the EU, in the topic of tech-sovereignty which is a incredibly hot topic in the EU. With the US abusing it's position not only recently but years past, the EU is accelerating funding and plans to decouple from anything the US can mess with legally. Much of that sentiment has been spreading all over the EU governments and software communities. GitHub for all its purposes remains a platform hostile to EU interests long term.
  - abeyer 2mo ago
    I don't think they were saying that there aren't reasons to not use github, in or out of the USA, but rather that codeberg was already not a contender for many use cases due to their existing rules restricting private/non-OSS repos.
    - nottorp 2mo ago
      It's apples to oranges. No matter how many reasons one has to avoid github, Codeberg is only an alternative for open source hosting. Are there any alternatives that you could use for closed source development that aren't owned by US entities?
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        Self hosted Forgejo
        nottorp 2mo ago
        Self hosted gitlab etc. What if you can't be bothered and would rather pay a symbolic subscription, like what github offers?
singron 2mo ago
Is there any evidence of division? Are all the vibe-coders going to some codeberg2? One of the main complaints is that the banned projects don't have human users proportionate to their activity, so if they all go to codeberg2, then that forge would just be full of projects nobody cares about. Are there any projects on codeberg that are getting banned and actually have significant human interest? If codeberg decided to kick out spammers, nobody would decry the loss, so what's being lost here? Is it strictly slippery slope?
- cmrdporcupine 2mo ago
  Nobody has been banned yet, AFAIK. So nobody can answer your second paragraph question. But plenty are choosing to leave. The judgement you're talking about here ("banned projects don't have human users propostionate...") is going to require evidence? At this point the software community is absolutely full of these tools and people who use them. If the specific thing banned was projects like that, fine. But that's not what the clause added in the PR said.
  - drdexebtjl 2mo ago
    > At this point the software community is absolutely full of these tools That is self-evident. > and people who use them. This isn’t.
yogthos 2mo ago
A great way to ensure that most developers will not be using Codeberg going forward. While there's a ton of drama around LLM use right now, anybody who's actually used this tech in anger understands that these tools really do work, and that they will only be used more in the future. I guess Codeberg is angling to become a small artisanal community, and there might certainly be a niche for that.
- WolfeReader 2mo ago
  If the outcome is that most vibe-coders leave Codeberg alone, that seems like a win for Codeberg.
  - yogthos 2mo ago
    The outcome is obviously going to be that most coders leave Codeberg because LLMs are not going anywhere, and they will continue to be integrating into people's workflows. But perhaps Codeberg intends on becoming something akin to a digital Amish community, and there's nothing wrong with that.
    - WolfeReader 2mo ago
      The current adoption of LLMs by developers seems to be a bit more than 20%. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/06/about-1-in-5-us-workers-now-use-ai-in-their-job-up-since-last-year/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/06/about-1-i... This is just for professional jobs (and is 9 months old) of course.
      - yogthos 2mo ago
        That's an incredible rate of adoption given that this stuff has only been really usable for the past year or so.
        WolfeReader 2mo ago
        It sure is! But I guess it would be less fun to say "1 out of 5 developers will not be using Codeberg going forward". Especially since that may well be an intended effect of Codeberg's decision here. As long as AI is a source of environmental damage, cognitive harm, and a cause of rising hardware costs, there will always be a sizeable set of developers who want nothing to do with it. The headline should be "AI Divides".
PaulDavisThe1st 2mo ago
I have no particular problem with this decision/policy on the part of Codeberg. I do have an issue with their "tainted code" project that labels various FLOSS projects as "AI tainted". ardour.org has the follow AI policy statement: --------- Using LLMs to generate code for Ardour A word about licensing, copyright and LLMs ("AI"). We require all code contributed to Ardour to be licensed under the GPL (you may retain copyright, but the code must use the GPL). Currently, following Thaler vs. Perlmutter in March 2025, no LLM-generated code may be copyrighted in the USA. The GPL relies on copyright, and cannot function if copyright is not held. Consequently, if you use an LLM (Claude, Codex, CoPilot etc. etc) to create code, it cannot be included in Ardour. If you want to use LLMs to explore and understand some of Ardour's source code, feel free. But we cannot accept PRs or patches or contributions that are not licensed under the GPL, and if you choose to be honest about it, this means that no LLM-generated code can be accepted by us. --------- Yet this codeberg-adjacent project considers this project to be AI-tainted. If you're going to do something, do it right or don't do it at all.
- rpdillon 2mo ago
  They didn't consult a lawyer when they wrote that. The idea that public domain code that is not copyrightable is incompatible with the GPL is simply not true. sqlite is in the public domain and not copyrightable, for example. Their decision leans too heavily on what that court decision said. It was actually fairly nuanced. The court explicitly declined to address whether Thaler could be considered the author because he created the AI, because Thaler originally listed the machine as the sole author in his registration application. It is clear that works generated entirely by AI without meaningful human contribution are not eligible for copyright protection, though it does not resolve questions regarding AI-assisted works where human input is significant, which is a predominant use case with AI-assisted coding. Finally, it appears they're unfamiliar with copyright rules around non-copyrightable works that are combined with other creative copyrightable works. The result is almost universally copyrightable. I'm hedging because I haven't thought through the cases exhaustively, but I can't think of a single case where the resulting work would not be copyrightable.
  - 2mo ago
2001zhaozhao 2mo ago
I write almost all code with GenAI nowadays. I'd like to say it's not slop, but I guess now there's no way to get Codeberg to agree.
- WolfeReader 2mo ago
  "Write" is not the correct verb for how you produce software if you get it from GenAI. May I suggest a few replacements? "Plagiarize" or "excrete" are both more fitting in different ways.
  - voidnullvalue 2mo ago
    [flagged]
  - 83642736392 2mo ago
    [flagged]
arjie 2mo ago
There’s a lot of hue and cry over what’s just Yet Another Bulletin Board because it has a git repo attached? Just host this stuff yourself guys. It’s trivial these days. I have my own remotes with my own CI and it’s all ultrafast because I can just make assumptions about the way I write software. None of these platforms are necessary for development. Just take from them what you want and build your own universe. This grade of CRUD software is generally solved. There are places you need other people. Stuff like ffmpeg or GPU kernels. But other kinds of code is kind of unimportant. Not being part of this community loses you nothing.
kay_o 2mo ago
I don't understand why people are referring to Codeberg as competitors, or going to competition. They're WANTING you to go back => GitHub and consume the GitHub's resource's if you do not conform to their traditionalist nonprofit view. They are not trying to retain you as a customer or even have customers ! They do not advertise ...! I am a [relatively responsible] utilisateur of AI and I truly do not understand the entitlement of some people. It is a nonprofit, the vast majority of people complaining are not voters, donators, or members, while the vast majority of nonprofit members have chosen this view.
- 062570864389 2mo ago
  It's a bait and switch and not a reliable git hosting provider.
- ares623 2mo ago
  It's the same thing as the "jqwik" issue. My personal opinion, is that the people clutching pearls are _scared_. There is a nagging feeling that deep down, they know the machine gods they love so dearly are _wrong_. That if actions like these pick up momentum, if their "experiments" work, and more and more people start realizing that alternatives exist, the current places will end up as mostly "dead malls" as the people have moved on to the new places. And they will be facing at a gate where the people guarding it know where they came from, and why they are now asking for entry.
  - CaptainFever 2mo ago
    That's a nice xenophobic fantasy. There's a reason why border guards are known for their power trips.
jjouett 2mo ago
Its a choice they're totally allowed to make, I just wish we'd get an updated mission statement[1]: "The mission of Codeberg e.V. is to build and maintain a free collaboration platform for creating, archiving, and preserving code and to document its development process." Amended to include at the end ", as long as you use the tools we find agreeable." [1]: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/ https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/
xvilka 2mo ago
Maybe it will push more people and more effort into the true decentralization since the Forgejo/Codeberg federation[1] effort is way too slowly moving. Radicle[2] it is. [1] https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/federation/src/branch/main/FederationRoadmap.md https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/federation/src/branch/m... [2] https://radicle.dev/ https://radicle.dev/
frangonf 2mo ago
I am a heavy viber that uses a lot of resources in github now after LLMs compared with pre-LLMs for my personal projects. I find great that there are places that are still human first and sensible about community and free software instead of just providing technical infra. Gitlab and Gitea are already open Github alternatives: open source core projects turned open sourcish business with free as in beer plans that get monetized with user data, loss leadering, business offerings and other sassy business models. Codeberg is deciding to not be that. Other projects can decide different and its users should evaluate the tradeoffs and choose.
nilslindemann 2mo ago
Considering the fact that AI-written code is the future, Codeberg has damned itself to be a niche project forever.
gladimdim 2mo ago
So, only self hosting. Gonna mirror my github repos on my synology!
- layer8 2mo ago
  You should be doing that anyway, no external hoster can be a replacement for having your own backup.
gladimdim 2mo ago
So, i will self host all of mh gh mirrors on synology. Never liked strange us/eu "communities" with their strange values anyways
philipwhiuk 2mo ago
> There are serious questions about copyright, labor, energy use, slop, and maintainers drowning in generated contributions. But these tools are also becoming part of how software is made. This first sentence is such a weasel-acknowledgement that is used to just effectively ignore all of it.
ChrisArchitect 2mo ago
Related: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386 Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015588 Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635 I regret migrating to Codeberg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49021856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49021856
jmull 2mo ago
It seems to me, Codeberg sees no value in AI slop and doesn't want to spend significant amounts of its limited resources hosting it. The author talks a lot about what they want from Codeberg. And I suppose it's fine to wish someone (on the right side of the ocean) would provide services, tailored to your personal desires, for free. But don't be surprised when no one takes you up on it. For myself, I don't see a point to Codeberg simply being a clone of GitHub. GitHub is free, which is great, but it's also pretty shitty. Why do we need more of that?
cdrnsf 2mo ago
This decision is consistent with the community Codeberg has attracted of late. It's smaller, independent and takes stances that are not in line with competitors like GitHub. If you want something less reliable, at larger scale and filled with AI projects that GitHub is clearly encouraging, you should use GitHub.
cesarb 2mo ago
> I wish Codeberg were more forward-looking here: willing to host the Open Source software of tomorrow, not only software made in the ways its community approves of today. Is "vibe-coded software" really going to be the "Open Source software of tomorrow"? The opinion stated in the blog post announcing this change is the opposite: "We believe that LLMs endanger the free/libre software ecosystem as a whole." and this is expanded in more detail later in that blog post (starting at the "Collaboration at danger" section). This reeks of the same FOMO strategy seen often in cryptocurrency projects (which, unsurprisingly, have also been banned from Codeberg at the same time): stating that their way is going to be the future, and that those who don't follow it will be left behind ("have fun staying poor").
eberfreitas 2mo ago
> More importantly, LLMs if done and used well, should be welcome to all of us. They could be used to reclaim control and power, away from large corporations and institutions. Is it just me, or does this read rather naive?
chapz 2mo ago
Codeberg should host code, and should not be bothered by which tool the code is written. Let's wait until GitHub starts accepting only code written in VS Code or Visual Studio because those are Microsofts tools. Want to use other tools? Move somewhere else.
seanclayton 2mo ago
> The Open Source world needs to figure out how to engage with that future How ironic. Why is the burden of labor on the open source community? They have to do more volunteer work for your AI satisfaction, even after training the very models you depend on? I think proponents of AI are the ones who have the burden of figuring out how to engage with the open source community. Use your own tokens to figure it out. Surely AI is up to the task. Your frontier models have the entirety of human diplomacy at its fingertips to steer you towards the path of success. I wish you luck.
warkdarrior 2mo ago
Resistance to all forms of oppression is a duty.
miki123211 2mo ago
This is the problem with choosing platform for moral — instead of practical — reasons. Platforms that are known for making moral judgments will likely keep making moral judgments in the future. Eventually, they'll make a judgment that you heavily disagree with. This is why communities founded on ideology tend to shatter, while those founded on a shared goal tend to survive. Linus doesn't care whether you're a GPU expert at AMD, a 16-year-old in Nairobi, or a nazi with a swastika tattooed on your arm. He cares about the quality of your kernel patches.
- illiac786 2mo ago
  You are saying this like pursuing profit above anything else is not a moral judgment one can heavily disagree with.
  - dijit 2mo ago
    Pursuing profit is not a moral judgement. It's at best neutral, and at worst considered to be immoral. Nobody says "I need to make a billion dollars because of my morals".
    - illiac786 2mo ago
      It is, especially the “above everything wise” definitely is an ethical decision, and one many often disagree with.
  - mft_ 2mo ago
    No; they aren’t making a judgement. They’re just describing a relationship between the nature of a platform and its likely future behaviour.
    - illiac786 2mo ago
      Who is “they“ is your sentence, I’m not following, sorry
      - 2mo ago
hingler36 2mo ago
This decision may also be related to infrastructure. Even if Codeberg wasn't against heavy LLM use for moral reasons, their limited infrastructure would have a hard time keeping up with the massive output that LLMs are capable of.
- kajman 2mo ago
  For once I wish they would've taken a more technological solution to this social problem and enforced more limited CI time and disk space quotas by default. Seems like it'd be fairer and require less active policing. My read from their post was that the resolution had more of an ideological bent than being just about resources, which is certainly their community's right to have.
VariousPrograms 2mo ago
Just self host if you want freedom. I switched to Codeberg to maintain a semblance of project discoverability while having freedom from Microsoft but I don’t need the code police telling me what I can build or how I can build it. My open source values are more WTFPL "freedom to do whatever you want" and Codeberg is more AGPL "freedom to do whatever we allow you to", which is totally fine.
VCFundedGenYer 2mo ago
I reiterate what I said in another thread (and invoke Don Mattrick): If you want AI slop, there's a perfectly fine*** product for you already out there - it's called GitHub. For those of us who are tired of AI messing with things, stop complaining and let this be. Codeberg made a great decision for those who are just tired and over AI coding unnecessarily taking over everything.
klustregrif 2mo ago
> I could not reliably assign authorship percentages to many of my own recent projects. This feels like a strange statement. Unless you are going out of you way to disguise AI contributions it's extremely simple to do some git magic to get an exact percentage. But you can also just ask AI and it'll tell you directly. And even if you've tried to disguise it I'm fairly certain that if you set aside 10$ for tokens, it'll be able to deduce how much is AI even with someone having tried to disguise it.
znpy 2mo ago
All these issue and gitlab is still there, fully working and fully functional, open source and ready to host your stuff without useless drama. It’s also got a great ci/ci experience.
pooploop64 2mo ago
This sounds great. We've hit some kind of scaling problem where "algorithms" are not up to the task of finding worthwhile stuff among the solar masses of junk being pumped out daily. And even if they were, the amount of exploitation is so fathomless that I don't think it could ever work. It's time for society to rediscover the power and immense value of real curation. Even with non experts, just looking through another human's playlist of recommended songs beats the crap out of algorithms. I've found so much more music that way than with youtube suggestions or whatever spotify does.
anonymous_user9 2mo ago
Genuine question to AI users upset by this: if you trust AI to generate your code, why don't you trust it to help you "deploy https://forgejo.org/ https://forgejo.org/ on cheap VPS make no mistakes"?
BrenBarn 2mo ago
> There are serious questions about copyright, labor, energy use, slop, and maintainers drowning in generated contributions. But these tools are also becoming part of how software is made. The Open Source world needs to figure out how to engage with that future, not just divide into camps. Everyone who says stuff like this is just burying their head in the sand. That is like saying that there are serious questions about the ethics of buying sweatshop-made clothes, or driving a gas-powered car, or robbing grocery stores --- but those are becoming part of life, and so we need to "figure out how to engage with them". That doesn't mean you have to upend your life to fight the good fight. You can say "I want a world without X, but right now I need X to live, so I do X, while maintaining an awareness of it and looking for opportunities to do less X". You can say "I want a world with some kinds of X but not others, so I do the X that I'm okay with". You can even say "I think X is ethically fine so I'll do it". But it just doesn't make sense to say "there are ethical issues with X, but those only affect how we engage with it, and have no bearing on whether we think people should need to engage with it at all". There can't be ethical consideration of "how" without at least considering the ethics of "whether".
exiguus 2mo ago
The facts are missing in the Article. The changes really 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.

144 points by ashdnazg 2mo ago

It is a bad rule. Their community and their choice but I hope we get some fresh options in the open source universe.

I don’t even mind forges taking a stance on AI. That’s fine. But I agree with Armin Ronacher here: banning projects that “mostly consist of code written by generative AI tools” is like the infamous Supreme Court “I know it when I see it” line. Yes of course I know a project mostly written by generative AI when I see it.

Hendrikto 2mo ago
Exactly. > The line is open to interpretation precisely where it needs to be enforceable. It is way too arbitrary and open to interpretation and biases.
- kps 2mo ago
  “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”

stock_toaster 2mo ago

codefloe[1] also runs forgejo. [1]: https://codefloe.com/ https://codefloe.com/

tcmart14 2mo ago
My only complaint about their site is that it mentions a generous free tier, but I have no way to seeing what exactly that free tier is. Edit: Found it, but it wasn't obvious the navigation path to it. Would be nice if "free tier" on their home page was a link where it was there and clear.

Hendrikto 2mo ago

Fully agree. I am against AI slop, LLM overhyping, and cryto scams, as much as anybody, however: > the main property I need from infrastructure [is for] it to be predictable, dependable, and reasonably neutral towards the legal Open Source software hosted on it. I do not like to build on a foundation that could be ripped away from under my feet at any moment for arbitrary reasons.

jalev 2mo ago
> I do not like to build on a foundation that could be ripped away from under my feet at any moment for arbitrary reasons. Do you only build and publish software in a vacuum running on hardware you own? There is no online community in the western hemisphere that isn't subject to any kind of arbitrariness, be it internal (community, like here) or external (legal or infrastructurally, like on github).
- Hendrikto 2mo ago
  Yes, but the world is not black and white. It’s all shades of gray. Codeberg just darkened their shade quite a bit.

dmitrygr 2mo ago

> There are serious questions about copyright, labor, energy use, slop, and maintainers drowning in generated contributions. But Way to not at all engage with any of that and just go on your merry way... Sure, if you fail to acknowledge that the other side has valid points, it is easy to act like you're completely right and they are morons, and we all need to Kumbaya together, and forget about their views.

aclindsa 2mo ago
The way I read the article was not that the author disagrees with the concerns you mention, but instead that they believe Codeberg's recent actions fail to address these underlying concerns while adding uncertainty for users of their platform (which they fear will ultimately hurt codeberg). To me, it reads as a call for further discussion and clarification rather than a dismissal.

ItsABytecode 2mo ago

Codeberg going down the path of Blueskyification

dist-epoch 2mo ago
[flagged]
- znpy 2mo ago
  Yeah something i noticed is that the richer the area is the more disconnected from reality they are. LLMs are here to stay. The genie’s out of the lamp. Get over it.
  - archagon 2mo ago
    No, people aren't going to get over it. Prepare to adjust your expectations.
    - znpy 2mo ago
      You’re going to be sorely disappointed
  - 83642736392 2mo ago
    [flagged]
nohell 2mo ago
[dead]
himata4113 2mo ago
At the start bluesky was actually pretty nice, but now it's just this weird bubble where disagreements don't exist and when I checked out like a month ago there was just so much damn p***.
- eviks 2mo ago

Arainach 2mo ago

> But these tools are also becoming part of how software is made. The Open Source world needs to figure out how to engage with that future, not just divide into camps. No. They don't. This isn't a "you just have to deal". You can say no. It's OK to decide that it's not worth the smaller amount of positives to deal with the massive amount of negatives. If you disagree, start your own community.

Zsfe510asG 2mo ago

I see. We should not divide into camps so the Austrians can sell their AI startups. The only people dividing and ruining open source are those paid for it by AI companies. Sometimes indirectly, like NumPy through its various sponsors. Then suddenly a bureaucrat appears on a mailing list or elsewhere and announces that AI contributions need to be allowed.

TheJoYo 2mo ago

I'd rather have a way to quickly ID what deltas were generated and which were not but that will never happen if it becomes a weapon to ban a project.

pelasaco 2mo ago

[flagged]

mariusor 2mo ago
Typical hn comment: xenophobia, hyperbole, wishful thinking, missing the point, cynicism and cheap sarcasm. You managed to hit all of them. Congrats.
- pelasaco 2mo ago
  I love it. How can it be seem as xenophobia, if I am from Berlin? From the dictionary: "Xenophobia refers to the irrational fear or dislike of people from different countries or cultures, often resulting in discrimination and social exclusion." I guess you are exactly part of the problem.
  - mariusor 2mo ago
    OK, like I'm supposed to guess that it's not xenophobia, it's the fabled German sense of humour instead. Saying hateful things is not any better if you're directing it at the people around you. You got the gist of what I was saying, please don't pretend otherwise.
    - pelasaco 2mo ago
      that is your issue. You shouldn't guess if you are accusing someone of something.. but that's how it goes today right? Feeling > Facts...
sajithdilshan 2mo ago
[flagged]

neogodless 2mo ago

Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635 Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs (blog.codeberg.org) 1 day ago, 144 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386 Codeberg bans vibe coded projects (codeberg.org/codeberg) 2 days ago, 279 comments

dang 2mo ago
Thanks! Macroexpanded: Ah, the Codeberg Drama - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49034928 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49034928 - July 2026 (51 comments) I regret migrating to Codeberg - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49021856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49021856 - July 2026 (474 comments) Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635 - July 2026 (144 comments) Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015588 - July 2026 (638 comments) Codeberg: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003465 - July 2026 (77 comments) Codeberg bans vibe coded projects - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386 - July 2026 (279 comments)

CodesInChaos 2mo ago

I think introducing unpredictable new prohibitions is a much bigger problem than the specific bans on cryptocurrency or AI written code. Especially when it leads to existing code becoming unavailable and doesn't just ban new contributions violating the rules.

inigyou 2mo ago
They weren't exactly unpredictable. People didn't predict it because they're used to dealing with faceless machine platforms instead of human platforms. GitHub bans projects rarely, and when it does, it's without any warning or rule change.

cmrdporcupine 2mo ago

Agree substantially here, as I said elsewhere: the honest and respectful answer from the Codeberg community would have been: add resource limits, quotas, and a reviewed application form for new projects. And maybe a statement that: Pre-existing clearly "vibe coded" projects providing little value to the community may be subject to review. Our resources are limited. Don't abuse them. Instead it got framed in moralistic terms in many places, the actual voting process actively resisted all calls for clarification ("if you're a vibe coder you'll know, so stop trying to ask for clarification", the tone in online forums became nasty, and the result is both ambiguous and culturally poisoned and I decided to move my project ("good riddance!" call out the victors, "we got one of them!") I do think the one substantial argument that was made through the threads, was around IP ownership laws. However I remain unconvinced. Frankly if there's anywhere where I would most like to see AI generated work -- which is frankly based on weights generated from the broad and indiscriminate harvesting of other people's works -- is in copylefted software that takes the distillations of the efforts of the community and makes it available as free software with free software protections. I understand not everyone shares that opinion, and they're welcome to different interpretations. Like the author of the article I'm saddened to see this split. I am honestly curious to see where we are in 2-3 years on this topic.

kakonako 2mo ago
> Frankly if there's anywhere where I would most like to see AI generated work -- which is frankly based on weights generated from the broad and indiscriminate harvesting of other people's works -- is in copylefted software that takes the distillations of the efforts of the community and makes it available as free software with free software protections. I agree wholeheartedly with this. We have large corporations stealing work left right and center. Lets utilise that to our benefit and make open and free versions of all software. The crux is that to do that each individual has to pay currency to use this tool. Maybe there is a place for collectives to collect money and to utilise llms to free software. (What strange times we live in.) A slight aside, open source lived and breathed the idea of ownership of software, be that a council, a handful of committed maintainers, a BDFL and all things in between and adjacent. There isn't really much wrong with "vibe coded" software, the issue seems to be owning that software. Things feels fundamentally more fluid, based on specs and more importantly tests that actually define the features that the software is expected to perform. Not ownership, but more like a contract.

_def 2mo ago

> It can choose to be a smaller community with a stronger political identity, but that is a different ambition from being a broad and dependable European alternative to GitHub. Wrong category. It doesn't want to. It's not a company. Might as well act on their beliefs. Devs are so spoiled with free CI, running nonsensical workflows all the time for free. Imagine that multiplied by magnitudes thanks to AI. Just a waste of resources.

pelasaco 2mo ago
Devs are so spoiled. They first tried to sell themselves as morally better than GitHub, and now the spoiled devs ban who uses AI..
- lowsong 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - skinfaxi 2mo ago
    Without additional explanation this reads like flamebait.
    - lowsong 2mo ago
      Flippant maybe, but not bait. AI is many things, and a moral choice is one of them. Codeberg's stance isn't a moral one as much as a technical one, but there is a very strong argument that the use of AI is inherently immoral.
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
      - skeledrew 2mo ago
        > there is a very strong argument that the use of AI is inherently immoral Do say more.
- 2mo ago

free_bip 2mo ago

I think this move by Codeberg is lowkey genius. They're trying to build a community based on a set of shared values. Those who disagree with those values are now self-selecting out of the Codeberg community, which is exactly the point of passing these kinds of resolutions. The fact that the rule is open for interpretation means that they can effectively shut down malicious actors (i.e those who intentionally misrepresent the degree of AI assistance in writing their code) before they become a problem. It becomes an exercise in judgement instead of a potentially exploitable/loophole-able set of hard and fast rules. There's no issue with this. This isn't the supreme court. Your income is not on the line. It's a code hosting repository. Go to GitHub if it bothers you. Only time will tell if this set of values holds up. Personally, I think they will, and that the rules will end up being less strict than people are making them out to be, and that relatively few projects will be removed from the platform.

aliasxneo 2mo ago
Based on this precedence, if I'm accepted into the community today, how would I know I'll be accepted tomorrow? If you're literally just using Codeberg as a mirror, then sure, it doesn't really matter much. But like you said, that's not what they are building. They want people to invest in the community. So now, as an investor of my hard-earned free time, I'm faced with the question on whether all my investment can go up in flames on the whims of a shadow group.
- nmz 2mo ago
  1. This precedence is based on law or on the abscence of it. 2. Slippery slope fallacy. 3. Anarchy or Tyranny are not the only modes of operation. -- See point 2
- free_bip 2mo ago
  You are effectively saying you do not trust the judgement of the community to accept you long term. Why is that? Is it because you believe there would be a new policy that would exclude your workflow? What would such a policy be? Do you really, reasonably believe it would be implemented "tomorrow"? Do you think adapting to such a policy would be unreasonable? Or is it because you don't trust the judgement of the people enforcing these new rules? If not one of the two, what is the reason? The point I'm trying to make here is that this just sounds like a slippery slope argument. If you don't have a concrete reason to believe you won't be welcome "tomorrow" then my mind has not been changed.

ok123456 2mo ago

So are they going to have "AI" police this? Heuristics about check-in size and scope are still AI, albeit "classical AI."

8organicbits 2mo ago
The low hanging fruit are claude.md, commits co-authored by Copilot, etc.
chasd00 2mo ago
on April 1 next year don't be surprised when lots of repositories come out with "surprise! i was AI all along". How are they ever going to know? Seems like a prompt like "remove all traces from this code that it was generated using AI" would one shot the whole repo and make it virtually impossible to justifiably claim it was vibecoded.

ralph84 2mo ago

That's the beauty of the internet, everyone can find their space. Even the buggy whip makers.

nottorp 2mo ago

> Since I want GitHub to face competition I have thoughts. Github allows private repos, organization access control etc. I don't see how Codeberg is competition.

delfinom 2mo ago
Codeberg was competition for the EU, in the topic of tech-sovereignty which is a incredibly hot topic in the EU. With the US abusing it's position not only recently but years past, the EU is accelerating funding and plans to decouple from anything the US can mess with legally. Much of that sentiment has been spreading all over the EU governments and software communities. GitHub for all its purposes remains a platform hostile to EU interests long term.
- abeyer 2mo ago
  I don't think they were saying that there aren't reasons to not use github, in or out of the USA, but rather that codeberg was already not a contender for many use cases due to their existing rules restricting private/non-OSS repos.
  - nottorp 2mo ago
    It's apples to oranges. No matter how many reasons one has to avoid github, Codeberg is only an alternative for open source hosting. Are there any alternatives that you could use for closed source development that aren't owned by US entities?
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      Self hosted Forgejo
      - nottorp 2mo ago
        Self hosted gitlab etc. What if you can't be bothered and would rather pay a symbolic subscription, like what github offers?

singron 2mo ago

Is there any evidence of division? Are all the vibe-coders going to some codeberg2? One of the main complaints is that the banned projects don't have human users proportionate to their activity, so if they all go to codeberg2, then that forge would just be full of projects nobody cares about. Are there any projects on codeberg that are getting banned and actually have significant human interest? If codeberg decided to kick out spammers, nobody would decry the loss, so what's being lost here? Is it strictly slippery slope?

cmrdporcupine 2mo ago
Nobody has been banned yet, AFAIK. So nobody can answer your second paragraph question. But plenty are choosing to leave. The judgement you're talking about here ("banned projects don't have human users propostionate...") is going to require evidence? At this point the software community is absolutely full of these tools and people who use them. If the specific thing banned was projects like that, fine. But that's not what the clause added in the PR said.
- drdexebtjl 2mo ago
  > At this point the software community is absolutely full of these tools That is self-evident. > and people who use them. This isn’t.

yogthos 2mo ago

A great way to ensure that most developers will not be using Codeberg going forward. While there's a ton of drama around LLM use right now, anybody who's actually used this tech in anger understands that these tools really do work, and that they will only be used more in the future. I guess Codeberg is angling to become a small artisanal community, and there might certainly be a niche for that.

WolfeReader 2mo ago
If the outcome is that most vibe-coders leave Codeberg alone, that seems like a win for Codeberg.
- yogthos 2mo ago
  The outcome is obviously going to be that most coders leave Codeberg because LLMs are not going anywhere, and they will continue to be integrating into people's workflows. But perhaps Codeberg intends on becoming something akin to a digital Amish community, and there's nothing wrong with that.
  - WolfeReader 2mo ago
    The current adoption of LLMs by developers seems to be a bit more than 20%. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/06/about-1-in-5-us-workers-now-use-ai-in-their-job-up-since-last-year/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/06/about-1-i... This is just for professional jobs (and is 9 months old) of course.
    - yogthos 2mo ago
      That's an incredible rate of adoption given that this stuff has only been really usable for the past year or so.
      - WolfeReader 2mo ago
        It sure is! But I guess it would be less fun to say "1 out of 5 developers will not be using Codeberg going forward". Especially since that may well be an intended effect of Codeberg's decision here. As long as AI is a source of environmental damage, cognitive harm, and a cause of rising hardware costs, there will always be a sizeable set of developers who want nothing to do with it. The headline should be "AI Divides".

PaulDavisThe1st 2mo ago

I have no particular problem with this decision/policy on the part of Codeberg. I do have an issue with their "tainted code" project that labels various FLOSS projects as "AI tainted". ardour.org has the follow AI policy statement: --------- Using LLMs to generate code for Ardour A word about licensing, copyright and LLMs ("AI"). We require all code contributed to Ardour to be licensed under the GPL (you may retain copyright, but the code must use the GPL). Currently, following Thaler vs. Perlmutter in March 2025, no LLM-generated code may be copyrighted in the USA. The GPL relies on copyright, and cannot function if copyright is not held. Consequently, if you use an LLM (Claude, Codex, CoPilot etc. etc) to create code, it cannot be included in Ardour. If you want to use LLMs to explore and understand some of Ardour's source code, feel free. But we cannot accept PRs or patches or contributions that are not licensed under the GPL, and if you choose to be honest about it, this means that no LLM-generated code can be accepted by us. --------- Yet this codeberg-adjacent project considers this project to be AI-tainted. If you're going to do something, do it right or don't do it at all.

rpdillon 2mo ago
They didn't consult a lawyer when they wrote that. The idea that public domain code that is not copyrightable is incompatible with the GPL is simply not true. sqlite is in the public domain and not copyrightable, for example. Their decision leans too heavily on what that court decision said. It was actually fairly nuanced. The court explicitly declined to address whether Thaler could be considered the author because he created the AI, because Thaler originally listed the machine as the sole author in his registration application. It is clear that works generated entirely by AI without meaningful human contribution are not eligible for copyright protection, though it does not resolve questions regarding AI-assisted works where human input is significant, which is a predominant use case with AI-assisted coding. Finally, it appears they're unfamiliar with copyright rules around non-copyrightable works that are combined with other creative copyrightable works. The result is almost universally copyrightable. I'm hedging because I haven't thought through the cases exhaustively, but I can't think of a single case where the resulting work would not be copyrightable.
- 2mo ago

2001zhaozhao 2mo ago

I write almost all code with GenAI nowadays. I'd like to say it's not slop, but I guess now there's no way to get Codeberg to agree.

WolfeReader 2mo ago
"Write" is not the correct verb for how you produce software if you get it from GenAI. May I suggest a few replacements? "Plagiarize" or "excrete" are both more fitting in different ways.
- voidnullvalue 2mo ago
  [flagged]
- 83642736392 2mo ago
  [flagged]

arjie 2mo ago

There’s a lot of hue and cry over what’s just Yet Another Bulletin Board because it has a git repo attached? Just host this stuff yourself guys. It’s trivial these days. I have my own remotes with my own CI and it’s all ultrafast because I can just make assumptions about the way I write software. None of these platforms are necessary for development. Just take from them what you want and build your own universe. This grade of CRUD software is generally solved. There are places you need other people. Stuff like ffmpeg or GPU kernels. But other kinds of code is kind of unimportant. Not being part of this community loses you nothing.

kay_o 2mo ago

I don't understand why people are referring to Codeberg as competitors, or going to competition. They're WANTING you to go back => GitHub and consume the GitHub's resource's if you do not conform to their traditionalist nonprofit view. They are not trying to retain you as a customer or even have customers ! They do not advertise ...! I am a [relatively responsible] utilisateur of AI and I truly do not understand the entitlement of some people. It is a nonprofit, the vast majority of people complaining are not voters, donators, or members, while the vast majority of nonprofit members have chosen this view.

062570864389 2mo ago
It's a bait and switch and not a reliable git hosting provider.
ares623 2mo ago
It's the same thing as the "jqwik" issue. My personal opinion, is that the people clutching pearls are _scared_. There is a nagging feeling that deep down, they know the machine gods they love so dearly are _wrong_. That if actions like these pick up momentum, if their "experiments" work, and more and more people start realizing that alternatives exist, the current places will end up as mostly "dead malls" as the people have moved on to the new places. And they will be facing at a gate where the people guarding it know where they came from, and why they are now asking for entry.
- CaptainFever 2mo ago
  That's a nice xenophobic fantasy. There's a reason why border guards are known for their power trips.

jjouett 2mo ago

Its a choice they're totally allowed to make, I just wish we'd get an updated mission statement[1]: "The mission of Codeberg e.V. is to build and maintain a free collaboration platform for creating, archiving, and preserving code and to document its development process." Amended to include at the end ", as long as you use the tools we find agreeable." [1]: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/ https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/

xvilka 2mo ago

Maybe it will push more people and more effort into the true decentralization since the Forgejo/Codeberg federation[1] effort is way too slowly moving. Radicle[2] it is. [1] https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/federation/src/branch/main/FederationRoadmap.md https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/federation/src/branch/m... [2] https://radicle.dev/ https://radicle.dev/

frangonf 2mo ago

I am a heavy viber that uses a lot of resources in github now after LLMs compared with pre-LLMs for my personal projects. I find great that there are places that are still human first and sensible about community and free software instead of just providing technical infra. Gitlab and Gitea are already open Github alternatives: open source core projects turned open sourcish business with free as in beer plans that get monetized with user data, loss leadering, business offerings and other sassy business models. Codeberg is deciding to not be that. Other projects can decide different and its users should evaluate the tradeoffs and choose.

nilslindemann 2mo ago

Considering the fact that AI-written code is the future, Codeberg has damned itself to be a niche project forever.

gladimdim 2mo ago

So, only self hosting. Gonna mirror my github repos on my synology!

layer8 2mo ago
You should be doing that anyway, no external hoster can be a replacement for having your own backup.

gladimdim 2mo ago

So, i will self host all of mh gh mirrors on synology. Never liked strange us/eu "communities" with their strange values anyways

philipwhiuk 2mo ago

ChrisArchitect 2mo ago

Related: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386 Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015588 Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635 I regret migrating to Codeberg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49021856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49021856

jmull 2mo ago

It seems to me, Codeberg sees no value in AI slop and doesn't want to spend significant amounts of its limited resources hosting it. The author talks a lot about what they want from Codeberg. And I suppose it's fine to wish someone (on the right side of the ocean) would provide services, tailored to your personal desires, for free. But don't be surprised when no one takes you up on it. For myself, I don't see a point to Codeberg simply being a clone of GitHub. GitHub is free, which is great, but it's also pretty shitty. Why do we need more of that?

cdrnsf 2mo ago

This decision is consistent with the community Codeberg has attracted of late. It's smaller, independent and takes stances that are not in line with competitors like GitHub. If you want something less reliable, at larger scale and filled with AI projects that GitHub is clearly encouraging, you should use GitHub.

cesarb 2mo ago

> I wish Codeberg were more forward-looking here: willing to host the Open Source software of tomorrow, not only software made in the ways its community approves of today. Is "vibe-coded software" really going to be the "Open Source software of tomorrow"? The opinion stated in the blog post announcing this change is the opposite: "We believe that LLMs endanger the free/libre software ecosystem as a whole." and this is expanded in more detail later in that blog post (starting at the "Collaboration at danger" section). This reeks of the same FOMO strategy seen often in cryptocurrency projects (which, unsurprisingly, have also been banned from Codeberg at the same time): stating that their way is going to be the future, and that those who don't follow it will be left behind ("have fun staying poor").

eberfreitas 2mo ago

> More importantly, LLMs if done and used well, should be welcome to all of us. They could be used to reclaim control and power, away from large corporations and institutions. Is it just me, or does this read rather naive?

chapz 2mo ago

Codeberg should host code, and should not be bothered by which tool the code is written. Let's wait until GitHub starts accepting only code written in VS Code or Visual Studio because those are Microsofts tools. Want to use other tools? Move somewhere else.

seanclayton 2mo ago

> The Open Source world needs to figure out how to engage with that future How ironic. Why is the burden of labor on the open source community? They have to do more volunteer work for your AI satisfaction, even after training the very models you depend on? I think proponents of AI are the ones who have the burden of figuring out how to engage with the open source community. Use your own tokens to figure it out. Surely AI is up to the task. Your frontier models have the entirety of human diplomacy at its fingertips to steer you towards the path of success. I wish you luck.

warkdarrior 2mo ago

Resistance to all forms of oppression is a duty.

miki123211 2mo ago

This is the problem with choosing platform for moral — instead of practical — reasons. Platforms that are known for making moral judgments will likely keep making moral judgments in the future. Eventually, they'll make a judgment that you heavily disagree with. This is why communities founded on ideology tend to shatter, while those founded on a shared goal tend to survive. Linus doesn't care whether you're a GPU expert at AMD, a 16-year-old in Nairobi, or a nazi with a swastika tattooed on your arm. He cares about the quality of your kernel patches.

illiac786 2mo ago
You are saying this like pursuing profit above anything else is not a moral judgment one can heavily disagree with.
- dijit 2mo ago
  Pursuing profit is not a moral judgement. It's at best neutral, and at worst considered to be immoral. Nobody says "I need to make a billion dollars because of my morals".
  - illiac786 2mo ago
    It is, especially the “above everything wise” definitely is an ethical decision, and one many often disagree with.
- mft_ 2mo ago
  No; they aren’t making a judgement. They’re just describing a relationship between the nature of a platform and its likely future behaviour.
  - illiac786 2mo ago
    Who is “they“ is your sentence, I’m not following, sorry
    - 2mo ago

hingler36 2mo ago

This decision may also be related to infrastructure. Even if Codeberg wasn't against heavy LLM use for moral reasons, their limited infrastructure would have a hard time keeping up with the massive output that LLMs are capable of.

kajman 2mo ago
For once I wish they would've taken a more technological solution to this social problem and enforced more limited CI time and disk space quotas by default. Seems like it'd be fairer and require less active policing. My read from their post was that the resolution had more of an ideological bent than being just about resources, which is certainly their community's right to have.

VariousPrograms 2mo ago

Just self host if you want freedom. I switched to Codeberg to maintain a semblance of project discoverability while having freedom from Microsoft but I don’t need the code police telling me what I can build or how I can build it. My open source values are more WTFPL "freedom to do whatever you want" and Codeberg is more AGPL "freedom to do whatever we allow you to", which is totally fine.

VCFundedGenYer 2mo ago

I reiterate what I said in another thread (and invoke Don Mattrick): If you want AI slop, there's a perfectly fine*** product for you already out there - it's called GitHub. For those of us who are tired of AI messing with things, stop complaining and let this be. Codeberg made a great decision for those who are just tired and over AI coding unnecessarily taking over everything.

klustregrif 2mo ago

> I could not reliably assign authorship percentages to many of my own recent projects. This feels like a strange statement. Unless you are going out of you way to disguise AI contributions it's extremely simple to do some git magic to get an exact percentage. But you can also just ask AI and it'll tell you directly. And even if you've tried to disguise it I'm fairly certain that if you set aside 10$ for tokens, it'll be able to deduce how much is AI even with someone having tried to disguise it.

znpy 2mo ago

All these issue and gitlab is still there, fully working and fully functional, open source and ready to host your stuff without useless drama. It’s also got a great ci/ci experience.

pooploop64 2mo ago

This sounds great. We've hit some kind of scaling problem where "algorithms" are not up to the task of finding worthwhile stuff among the solar masses of junk being pumped out daily. And even if they were, the amount of exploitation is so fathomless that I don't think it could ever work. It's time for society to rediscover the power and immense value of real curation. Even with non experts, just looking through another human's playlist of recommended songs beats the crap out of algorithms. I've found so much more music that way than with youtube suggestions or whatever spotify does.

anonymous_user9 2mo ago

Genuine question to AI users upset by this: if you trust AI to generate your code, why don't you trust it to help you "deploy https://forgejo.org/ https://forgejo.org/ on cheap VPS make no mistakes"?

BrenBarn 2mo ago

> There are serious questions about copyright, labor, energy use, slop, and maintainers drowning in generated contributions. But these tools are also becoming part of how software is made. The Open Source world needs to figure out how to engage with that future, not just divide into camps. Everyone who says stuff like this is just burying their head in the sand. That is like saying that there are serious questions about the ethics of buying sweatshop-made clothes, or driving a gas-powered car, or robbing grocery stores --- but those are becoming part of life, and so we need to "figure out how to engage with them". That doesn't mean you have to upend your life to fight the good fight. You can say "I want a world without X, but right now I need X to live, so I do X, while maintaining an awareness of it and looking for opportunities to do less X". You can say "I want a world with some kinds of X but not others, so I do the X that I'm okay with". You can even say "I think X is ethically fine so I'll do it". But it just doesn't make sense to say "there are ethical issues with X, but those only affect how we engage with it, and have no bearing on whether we think people should need to engage with it at all". There can't be ethical consideration of "how" without at least considering the ethics of "whether".

exiguus 2mo ago

The facts are missing in the Article. The changes really 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.