How on earth will they determine that though?

I can’t see the future, but this all doesn’t sound like an ideological “vibe code is bad, we don’t allow it” but a “the copyright of vibe coded content is unclear across jurisdictions, we don’t allow it.” So I don’t think it’s something they’ll say “hey, this looks vibe coded, deleted.” Many projects self proclaim they’re vibe coded. Many projects list every commit that is vibe coded. It seems likely they’ll go after those projects instead.

But yes, I’m not an oracle, and Codeberg could always heel turn and turn this into a witch hunt, but I don’t think they’ve earned that reputation.

It does sound like “vibe code bad”.

Because if they were actually concerned about copyright, they would ban all LLM code, not just some LLM code.

There is no need for a repository hosting software to decide what people are allowed to upload unless it is literal Nazi or kiddy diddle content or something else illegal.

Did you not read the actual change?

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).

mostly

mostly

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).

So you can do a little copyright violation but not too much?

If you have more specific questions about Codeberg’s decision, you should ask them, not me.

I am only calling out the inconsistency of their statement.

Tell them then, not me. I’m not affiliated with Codeberg. I only read the change set.

Let’s be real here: Most future projects will be mostly written by AI.
Sure, the good ones will have proper human QA. But Claude Code is so much faster at writing and rewriting surprisingly good code, that ignoring it is just like ignoring IDEs was a decade ago.
You can still write code without AI, syntax highlighting, code-suggestions, documentation tooltips, inspections, and fully integrated version control. But all these tools legitimately make software development easier.

Let’s be real here, the concerns about what the copyright is of code that’s produced by AI is still sort of in the air, especially for a site that wants to host content from across the globe. Codeberg picking its battles and not wanting to deal with that for now seems reasonable.

Let’s be real here, the ethical concerns over LLM use far outweigh any copyright concerns and are the real reason people should refrain from using them in any way, shape, or form.

Yeah like whether it’s stolen or not. Whether it’s a copyright violation. Oh wait.

Was that a comeback? I think we’re agreeing with each other here. It does matter if stuff is stolen, which all LLM generated stuff is. I was referring more to the environmental impacts and all, because I’m sick of ppl talking about copyright as if that’s what makes LLMs suck. Even if it was legal under copyright law, it’d still be awful on all fronts.

Regardless of that, it still fails to address the very legitimate copyright concerns.

People still ignore IDEs. In fact, in certain circles, it is seen as a badge of honor to use Vim or Emacs instead of some modern solution.