It's claimed that @Codeberg has (will?) ban projects that are developed partly using LLM tools.
Is that correct? Then I'll have to take my donations and leave.
ALT
Replying to @troed@swecyb.com
@troed@swecyb.com @Codeberg@social.anoxinon.de
Apparently that is correct.
https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253
The rule is
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).I'm not clear on how enforcement will work.
Codeberg.orgProposal Assembly 2026: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusionsHere is the proposed addition for the ToU that @Gusted and I agreed on post-assembly for the upcoming membership vote. 🙏
The discussion for this proposal is available for Codeberg e. V. members in the forum: https://forum.codeberg.org/d/139-resolutions-for-assembly-on-codeberg-taking-a-stand-a...Replying to @phil@fed.bajsicki.com
Thanks - alright. That's just silly, _I_ take responsibility for the legal status and security of my own code but #Codeberg can of course institute whatever rules they wish. I think they'll be surprised at how many well known FOSS projects use LLM tools today.
I do already host my own Forgejo instance so for me personally leaving will be easy, but this is a blow to European open source where many projects will just have to leave for Github et al.
Replying to @troed@swecyb.com
@troed@swecyb.com @Codeberg@social.anoxinon.de
It is what it is. I don't think any organization seriously concerned for retaining ownership of their code is using a service provider for Git. It's not like setting up a server for it + runners is difficult or expensive (and frankly owning the actual infrastructure is just common sense).