poVoq

Yes, they can upload copyrighted stuff, but people typically don’t do so on large scale and when they knowingly do it these days they typically try to hide their tracks well enough that law firms know it will not be a lucrative business to try and blackmail them.

And one of Codeberg’s main points is the unknown copyright status, you just failed to understand it.

You are missing the point entirely. LLMs regularly generate code that is a near verbatim copy of existing copyrighted code, but with almost no way for the LLM using person to notice that. LLMs being sufficiently transformative might be an argument about the use of training material, making the resulting model not a copyright violation itself, and thus might protect the companies that produce and offer these models, but it says nothing about the actual output of a model.

It is only a question of time before some enterprising law firm decides to mass scan open-source projects and weaponize their findings similar to patent trolls or file-sharing legal threats. This has a long history in Germany where Codeberg is located, and even if a court rules that the host itself is only responsible for removing such copyright violating code, it will require significant effort to do so with constant legal fights as the attacking lawyers will try to figure out the identity of the person responsible so that they can blackmail them with cease and desist legal fees.

Politics will not care about some hobbyist open-source projects and large companies will spend a lot of effort to obfuscate their code to prevent this legal trolling to affect them.

something nobody ever told you about

Other than it being explained in big letters on the very front page of Codeberg?

It was a lenghty process with their members voting on both ToS changes. Just because you only hear from it now, doesn’t mean it was “made rather rapidly”.

And the ambiguity is necessary to prevent overburdening the moderators. This isn’t some legal code with a well funded state apparatus behind it.

Why would you, unless you are a member of Codeberg e.V. with voting rights? If you just use a gratis account on their platform, then you are just a guest they tollerate as long as you don’t become too smelly.

If the hard legal reality of all LLM generated code having a high risk of breaking copyright is “feelings” for you, then sure 🙄

It’s fairly easy indeed and works well: joinjabber.org/tutorials/service/unifiedpush/

Although you could just install the Slidge.im Matrix gateway and ditch ElementX all together.

It’s not prejudice if it is objectively true 🤷

Most LLM users don’t try to hide it and the commit pattern is a result of the LLM assisted workflow, thus without losing the perceived benefits of using LLMs it can not be easily hidden. And the pattern isn’t only about when but also what. You might be oblivious to it, but the pattern is very clear and not possible to mistake with regular code writing patterns in an overall project. It is harder to spot in individual smaller PRs though, but that isn’t what Codeberg’s new policy is targeting.

And anyways, this isn’t a question of “wrong-think”, but simply of Codeberg not wanting to be associated with such low quality, likely copyright violating and resource hogging projects. The LLM using people have plenty of other code forges to use, so it is really a non-issue 🤷

No need to assume that. Just by using LLMs to assist with code writing, the human in the loop changes their commit pattern.

Sorry but you are clearly delusional. There is no magic involved, just being able to look at the structure of the code and the pattern of the commits. It’s fairly easy in fact.

Are you trying to make some point? Because, yes they can.

There are plenty of other public git forges you can migrate your LLM assisted projects to 🤷

You might not be able to tell, but the signs something is LLM generated are pretty obvious to more experienced programmers.

Yes, that is what the term “derivative work” referrs to.

Indeed, this ruling says nothing about something being a derivative work, all it says is that AI generated works can not create new copyright claims, which is totally sensible and non-controversial.

Looks like the bad HN commenter takes are leaking 😑

Those comments on HN are hilarious 😅 That site really works as a parody of bad tech bro takes if you ignore that most of them are sadly dead serious.