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.
"No company is going to jail for you."
If vibe code is of questionable legality, then the best thing to do is to remain guarded until its legal standing is determined. It is simply an added bonus that it prevents slop that consumes data on servers for projects that nobody cares about enough to not have vibe coded.
Are you arguing a Codeberg member had a legitimate fear of being jailed for hosting others’ AI code? And GitHub/all other hosters should have the same legitimate fear of being jailed a long as they don’t ban the same? Or is this more of a straw man? Or were you bringing up that quote to point out that those trying to defend Codeberg are using completely fabricated arguments?
I have actually seen, from the inside, organisations implode though ideological purity demands.
No two people believe in all the same things. In the end this path reduces to one single shared value, That those with different values should be excluded.
Correct. I was previously engaging with this community and had moved some repos over from GitHub. One of those repos deals with cryptography that has an intersection with "crypto" projects. Due to vagueness of the language ratified, it's unclear whether the repo now violates the ToS. This completely caught me off guard, and now my trust in the judgement of the Codeberg community has been weakened.
This feels like a reasonable reaction to me.
And for what it's worth, it seems like they only care if the project is directly crypto related (e.g if you had a repo directly implementing a Monero node, that would probably not be allowed). If it's just a repo that implements a generic Cryptography concept that happens to be used both in crypto and elsewhere, then I don't see what the problem would be.
Again, the rules are judgement based. That means you can interact with the community to get clarification, and make your case that your project is worth keeping.
I started with a hypothetical. Then I used an actual real-world example. I have 100+ repos on GitHub spanning a wide array of technologies. If I moved all 100+ over, how do I know I won't fall afoul of whatever the community votes to ban next?
The point is Codeberg isn't a good fit for my situation which needs more continuity and less surprises, and that's been made readily apparent now. So I'm leaving, just like many other people who have been posting about it.
If the reason is more emotional than rational ("this feels like it's going to change more"), that's okay. Not everything needs to be governed by rigid rules. The Codeberg community knows that well. If in a few years your 100+ repos are still all fine and dandy to their rule set I'm sure they'd be happy to have you.
Unfortunately you can't make that decision. I have to wait and find out how far the ToS violation will be implemented. Or I just avoid that stress and go somewhere else. Most people being affected seem to be choosing the latter.
> If the reason is more emotional than rational
That's a bit reductive. Risk management always has a level of uncertainty involved. No one makes decisions with 100% certainty in the outcome. Before these votes, I had a certain level of risk assessment in moving off Github To Codeberg that favored Codeberg. Now that situation has changed. It's not "emotional" to recognize that.
The GP aimed to paint you as a fool because he apparently identifies with Codeberg and is unhappy that you’ve raised an objection he can’t easily dismiss.
I don’t want an opinion, I need a definitive ruling I can trust.
> I need a definitive ruling I can trust
Why? What's so special about the place where you host your source? It's the second time I see this sentiment in the thread, and I don't get it. If an official channel tells you a project is OK, and then someone else decides it's not, what does it really happen outside of you taking your project elsewhere?
Then suddenly the hoster decides that my project isn't wanted because the zeitgeist is against some technology used in it and poof it goes away.
What now?
"Just move away", sure. I can do that if they still let me export my data. But to be honest I'd rather just use a platform with a smaller risk of getting booted because someone decided my project is "too AI" or something similar.
I have no idea if there's a way to argue against the decisions, what proof do I need to provide, do I need to prepare somehow? Like have video of myself with a dated newspaper typing the code by hand to prove AI wasn't used? :D
Looking at community conversations, there actually seems to be little clarity over this, and quite a bit of confusion. Several established members of the community seem to be saying that the ToS actually only bans "cryptocurrency related projects" that "[harm] the reputation of Codeberg", and that direct cryptocurrency projects that don't harm Codeberg's reputation are actually allowed, saying that the current banner is a mistake and is in the process of being changed (while they have their own systems and are not on Codeberg, I'm guessing GNU Taler might be an example of a cryptocurrency project that would be allowed). In fact, this appears to be within the official interpretation used when locking the discussion thread on the change ([1] refers to [2]).
[1] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1254#issuecomment-19... [2] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1254#issuecomment-19...
While I can't find something specific about it in the new ToS, the new blog post notes that "side projects and experiments", and "specific tools and custom scripts that would be unlikely to find a community anyway" are "discouraged", but are "tolerated in practice" if they only use minimal resources. This is stated as being regardless of LLM use. So some of my repositories are apparently already borderline in the community's opinion (it's not clear how they judge use of resources, but I only use self-hosted runners).
But there also seems to be an increasing sense that many active members see Codeberg as a space for a particular type of FOSS, within a particular, normative view of what development and communities should look like. This ties into the "side projects and experiments" comment, and to the general tone of the AI blog post on what they want Codeberg to be and not be. The point about "projects with a single developer and virtually no users", about "large ghost projects", and so on, are within the context of AI, but are derided in a wider sense.
Some of my repositories look like single developer experiments with no users or community, but aren't. I'm ultimately a scientist, not a typical developer; users typically communicate by email and at conferences, and cite my software and associated papers in their papers rather than starring repositories on forges.
And yes, much of the discussion around these questions often falls into the argument that projects that are good will be fine, because they'll be accepted despite the rules, and that any concern about specifics is unwarranted. But I can't know that I won't be targeted by Codeberg having an increasingly normative view of what 'proper' community development looks like.
(Yes, I realize I'm free to use something else. I'll likely end up moving my repositories off Codeberg and onto some combination of my own Forgejo instance and Github. The lack of federation in Forgejo heavily penalizes not being on a major instance, however. Meanwhile, as much as I encourage using DOIs for citations rather than URLs, people often do the latter, so staying on an instance that might decide to ban my projects can create lasting problems: one of my whole reasons for starting to migrate to Codeberg was because it seemed organizationally stable.)
I think the blog post explained exactly that. To quote:
> The actual wording makes this more difficult. The terms prohibit projects that mostly consist of code written by generative AI tools. In an actively developed codebase, what does “mostly” mean, and who can still tell? I could not reliably assign authorship percentages to many of my own recent projects. The line is open to interpretation precisely where it needs to be enforceable.
Having done it once, they can clearly do it again. Will it be justified? Who knows? Will it exclude you? Maybe.
4229 points and 1716 comments at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079
1. dang specifically posted a comment saying the rule has been around for _years_ [1]
2. I browsed the top upvoted comments and they seem to almost universally lean towards this being a good thing.
That's about what I would of expected. Although the "being around for years" thing was news to me and doesn't really make the OP's argument a good comparison for Codeberg's case.
This question exists for any service. Unless you host things yourself, there's a baseline amount of trust you have to have in any service.
Would you use a bank if their response to the question of "How would I know I'll be able to access my money tomorrow?" is "This question exists for any bank" rather than actually giving any sort of reassurances?
In Codeberg case, what I would be looking at is the actual banning process, not "assurance" they won't ban me later. It's a Germany-based institution, if Germany applies a whole sanction to my country, I'm gone anyway.
No one is disputing the existence of the question.
> In Codeberg case, what I would be looking at is the actual banning process, not "assurance" they won't ban me later.
Okay, so then, what actually is the banning process? The recent changes sound like the banning process has been expanded to cover a lot of new things that it didn't before, and stating "well anyone can ban you" isn't particularly helpful information, which was the point I was making.
This is the actual part of the TOS
Please be aware that this list is neither exhaustive nor complete (illustrating the spirit of the law, not its letter). Be aware that any account can get suspended at any time if it is used for activities harming Codeberg e.V. or its associated platform and services, directly or indirectly, even if these activities are not explicitly listed in the examples above.
So your best bets is to keep backups of your data soemwhere else. Which you should always be doing.
Generally backing up a git repo is easy; it's all of the other stuff that tends to get hosted together with the code (issue tracking, pull requests, releases, potentially even CI) that's a lot worse to have to migrate over. Plus, anywhere a link was published to the repo is going to point to something that no longer exists.
It actually sounds like we're in agreement for the most part about the relative levels of risk here. I misunderstood your earlier reply to me as a rebuttal to what I was saying to the parent commenter, but from re-reading it I'm realizing I might have inferred incorrectly.
> it's all of the other stuff that tends to get hosted together with the code (issue tracking, pull requests, releases, potentially even CI) that's a lot worse to have to migrate over. Plus, anywhere a link was published to the repo is going to point to something that no longer exists.
I think most of them provides API endpoint to access those data or some export tools. And as far as links go, I would prefer to have a webpage for any relevant projects, something like the one for msmtp [0], tied to my own domain.
I'm faced with the question on whether all my investment can go up in flames on the whims of a shadow group.
As an example, HN now has this in the guidelines:
> Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.
Does this signify the end of HN? Or does it represent understandable growth in an evolving world?
So I had to spend the last 3 days dealing with all the fall out from that and moving my project -- which was not insignificant -- docker images, debian package hosting, documentation references, existing in-flight pull requests, blog posts, build/release processes, my CI configuration, etc. etc. I'm nowhere near done.
An individual making an AI slop comment on HN loses that one comment to moderation and moves on.
The Codeberg blog has articles critical of AI published back in September 2024[0]:
If they can use so much power to bring our systems down, imagine how much power they use by doing this to the entire Internet: We are concerned about the environmental and social impact of the current AI hype.
Growth at all costs is something that we, as a non-profit, are not interested in. We believe in frugal computing and that the resources our planet provides are limited. It is no coincidence that we directly "compete" against a company that funnels billions into the AI hype.
[0] https://blog.codeberg.org/letter-from-codeberg-software-is-a...
I mean, more power to you (the community) in setting up your fiefdom, but by God do I suspect there's going to be some good people who leave, not wanting to participate in that sort of dialogue. I don't understand why it's so hard to show a little understanding and compassion.
I suspect there's going to be some good people who leave, not wanting to participate in that sort of dialogue
Now you can have a perfectly legal GPL-licensed project that's not welcome because of the category it finds into or because of its devs' tooling. It's their site and their rules, sure, fine, but it does mean I'm not going to host my policy-compliant projects there. Are they going to get banned next month? Who knows.
2. Slippery slope fallacy.
3. Anarchy or Tyranny are not the only modes of operation. -- See point 2