The main argument is due to copyright issues of LLM generated code. Github will happily remove repos which violated copyright laws. It makes sense that Codeberg doesn’t want to host code which may be violating copyright law.

What

And how do they know it’s violating copyright law?

And anybody could try to take down your repository by pointing to copyright law in general. Bad faith takedowns are not a new phenomenon.

Then why not say it’s not allowed to upload code you don’t have copyright to? This would make sense, nobody would question it and it would generally also cover AI-generated code.

Mentioning vibe coding just upgraded it into a social and moral topic, while the sole fact that AI generated code is no issue at all, just that there is not a general concensus in the world who holds the copyright to that code.

It’s kinda like blanked banning cooking, because you can’t cook without a knife, and knife can be used as a weapon.

It’s more like banning cooking anything with mushrooms in it, because we haven’t sorted out which mushrooms are poisonous or not. You could make it more accurate by instead banning cooking with anything poisonous, but of course then lots of people will keep cooking with their mushrooms, naively thinking they are not poisonous and therefore allowed.

It’s just a different analogy but the point is the same, why not ban poisonous ingredients? It implies poisonous mushrooms also, but doesn’t criminalize cooking.

The point is that cooking was never criminalised in my analogy, only cooking with mushrooms. I also already wrote why that might be preferable to making the ban on poisonous ingredients

Just one problem with that: Every piece of work - code or otherwise, made by a human or not - may violate copyright law. There really is no way to know without actually checking against all other works (which you can’t because you don’t have access to all of them).

What GitHub does is what a sane person would do: React to claims. They just assume that what they get uploaded isn’t violating copyright until someone claims otherwise. And as it is literally impossible to actually know, that is the only sane way to approach this problem apart from just not hosting other people’s stuff at all.

I mean the host can always remove your repo. We’ll see how they handle it; but I would assume it won’t be without care. But yet another reason to host your own as well.

I have the same feeling with SourceHut which bans projects related to crypto money. I think bitcoins is a stupid idea, but knowing that the owner of the site can ban you because of the stupid idea of the day is a very wrong idea.

I mean, I agree with you, but there’s still room for abuse.

Have you seen OpenClaw’s issues page?

Vibe coders and AI agents are floating it with garbage, if they were to do that to Codeberg, it’ll probably run out of resources pretty quickly

How bad cou…

HOLY SHIT

Just use that cat girl captcha thing, every other FOSS site uses, and the problem is solved.

IMO everyone should have a local backup of everything they can get related to the repo. Like I know with git itself, anytime you clone the repo you get everything, but also the supporting stuff that is in the layer outside of git. IMO the host should mainly be the hub where everyone gets and interacts with the project, while everything else is already good to go in a new location, should the host either screw up in good faith, get corrupted by outside influences, or gets overrun by local or remote powers.

This makes me a bit curious about whether the overall risk to projects is higher from individual local device failure or politics around who controls remote hosting services and the nature of the project.

Actual question. Can you revert git to a prior state without the remote repo?

Yes, that’s a core purpose of git.

git reset --hard <commit-hash>

Yeah, as the other commenter mentioned, git is a distributed source control system, so all clones have the full history (though you can bump up the “starting point” to reduce the overhead of storing all previous commits).

Hosts like github can add more features on top of that, which would have to be backed up separately, but you can automate the repository itself using a single command, which is the same command used to make a clone in the first place.

Unless you did a shallow clone or something every repo clone is complete in git.

This right here