Assume you did some local LLM stuff in June that worked with a 200MB set of various jpegs and you wanted to keep it private: Is this still legit in September 2026? I wouldn't rely on it.
Yeah, I think this is a win-win for both parties.
You strike me as someone who would "ride along the lines of the terms of service" basically, and you'll see anything not explicitly forbidden as being allowed essentially.
While Codeberg is a project driven by humans, with human reactions to what's happening. If you're not comfortable with rules not being 100% defined, and requiring a humans value judgement to be had to figure out if the rule is broken or not, I don't think Codeberg is for you.
The rest of us, who are OK with humans making decisions rather than just going by what's written in rules, are fine with this, because we know our private repositories won't be deleted. And if they are, you'll be able to speak with a human to explain, and if your intention is fine and good, they'll be OK with it. But if you try to argue about some "That wasn't explicitly stated", then yeah, they'll probably get tired of you quickly.
Think your participating in your local user group vs some corporate/government forum, the rules will be enforced differently.
By using AI to write code, like virtually everyone does? Tell me, what indication was there in their TOS, that this might be close to a line?
> 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).
At least stick with the truth before launching with "the right the to do" (which is also a pretty bad rule because it's completely ambiguous.)
Ambiguous rules with clear objectives is what gives a non-profit the power to be flexible in the way to accomplish common goals. It's based on human trust and is fine by me and others. If you ever were part of a non-profit, you know human trust is an essential component.
What does "made up" mean? It was a decision by the actual members of the platform, you know, the actual people using it! Nothing "made up" about it.
I think it's pretty clear you don't have an idea of what Codeberg is trying to be, nor do you have any interest in understanding, you just want to push this "Codefloe" platform for some reason. Codeberg make very public what the platform is for and yes, that'll change in the future too, as the world changes.
The reason I'm supporting Codefloe is written in the comment you are responding to. Codeberg is not interested in hosting all FOSS, and Codefloe is. That is the reason. Its very simple.
It is pretty clear you are not making any effort at all to understand the problem people have with Codeberg's rug pull.
There are people who don't understand that and crank out slop. Fuck those people. That isn't what I do.
There are people who don't understand that and won't host my FOSS. Well, I've found someone who will.
They recently made some very ideological decisions…
That doesn’t work because „fine and good“ doesn’t mean the same thing to Codeberg voters/admins and to a large part of the hacke news population. Notably, Codeberg is morally opposed to AI.
Why on earth would Codeberg give even the slighest fucks about what the "hacker news population" finds "fine and good"? Makes absolutely zero sense.
Codeberg made those things against the Terms of Service because paying members who use the platform voted for exactly that. This is how Codeberg works, the members of the platform decides how it works.
Do I trust humans behind Codeberg to behave sensibly? No.
Would more precise terms of service that explain what Codeberg community thinks is ok help with such trust? Yes.
Should the humans behind Codeberg care what I think? Maybe? Presumably they do care about reaching _some_ users, otherwise why have the service public at all?
> The rest of us, who are OK with humans making decisions rather than just going by what's written in rules [...]
Better speak for yourself and not infer from your own views to others. With bad intention this could be interpreted as if I was incapable of dealing with human decisions when all I stated is that I mistrust people who rugpull me.