Since this article is being cross-posted, I will reiterate my original response.

The part that bothers me isn’t the specific ban on LLM projects, or the specific ban on cryptocurrency projects. It’s that a hub built around “free software” is now telling its users which kinds of software are deemed good and which are not, and that is closer to censorship than it might seem.

What a stupid, ignorant, harmful take. I shouldn’t need to explain how or why theft, plagiarism, poor code quality, or uncountable other factors contribute to a broadly objective standard of “good” and “not good.” In fact, it is more “acceptable” versus “dangerous.”

The false equivalence here is intolerable.

If it’s legitimate code, do you think its topic alone is enough reason to refuse hosting it? What if the topic is one you agree with?

Okay, I hear that you think you shouldn’t have to explain. But you do have to explain. And you also have to justify using what to me without that justification sounds like abusive language aimed at a present member, intended to browbeat someone merely for having a different opinion.

yeah… idk man. If you don’t like Codeberg then don’t use it? Why write a whole blogpost against it?

There are others, and there is forgejo you can run yourself. So your ideals don’t align, they won’t everywhere you go, keep looking for one that does.

you are 100% correct

i question if the author even has open source projects. codeberg is designed for open source projects. i dont have open source but i have used azure devops and bitbucket, i could use gitlab but i am picking places based on project/issue management. but the point is, there are many options, codeberg is for open source and they have that mindset. every design decision they make ia for open soirce projects

i question if the author even has open source projects.

Yeah you can see for yourself here: https://tty.fail/mrus

I mean it would be weird if he talked about migrating his projects off of codeberg if he didn’t have any projects to migrate.

that link didnt work but i didnt say he didnt have projects, i said open source. open source is a license.

😬

Ctrl+f “first amendment” shockingly didn’t find anything. It’s like one pinky toe away from saying it though.

Also blog writer, put down the italics and take three steps back.

Meh.

Their soapbox, their rules. You don’t like their rules, self host and make your own.

Sure, but that doesn’t conflict with the freedom to have an own opinion, right? And why shouldn’t that opinion be an “I regret …”?

Ironically, if you visit this site, you’ll be hit with a “please disable JavaScript” message at the top. Seems the author understands “their platform, their rules”.

They also make some okay points and concessions, before making a terrible suggestion for what Codeberg should do. Apparently they think Codeberg needs to be more soapbox-y, not less.

I think Codeberg made a misstep, but this suggestion is somehow worse.

The part that bothers me isn’t the specific ban on LLM projects, or the specific ban on cryptocurrency projects. It’s that a hub built around “free software” is now telling its users which kinds of software are deemed good and which are not, and that is closer to censorship than it might seem. Once a platform writes into its terms that an entire category “harms its reputation” and can be removed on that basis, the deciding factor stops being whether the code is legal, or functional, or useful, and becomes whether it aligns with a position the platform has taken. […] Every platform I can think of that took this approach became divisive the moment it started enforcing an ideology on its users, whatever that ideology happened to be, and however justified it looked at the time.

As acknowledged, Codeberg already doesn’t allow non-free software on it, that is itself pushing an ideology on its users. Extending this stance to other forms of software isn’t the big deal the author is making it out to be, software being free doesn’t absolve it of other moral implications.

We now even have people like Linus Torvalds making the fairly reasonable argument that an LLM is just a tool, and “clearly a useful one”

Appeal to authority. See this response.

We now even have people like Linus Torvalds making the fairly reasonable argument that an LLM is just a tool, and “clearly a useful one”

Appeal to authority. See this response.

I’d like to add that I’ve seen nothing from Linus saying he uses it to produce code, just to poke and prod it to find vulnerabilities. I see no issues with using it that way.

Okay, bye then.

It’s driven by Forgejo. Just use that to host your own if you disagree with the services given to you for free.

Also Fuck the AI hype.

I think a lot of Codeberg users are refugees from Github who didn’t want Microsoft telling them what to do. Joke’s on them, now they also don’t want Codeberg telling them what to do. Self-hosting is the answer, but something like federation between self-hosted forges also seems like a good idea.

TL;DR: First they came for the LLM and crypto warez?

idk

I just don’t agree with the sentiment about how FOSS devs need it because theyre usually one man shows.

I’m a FOSS dev, and yes, I’m a one gal show. But, I was doing this before AI and I’ll be doing it the same way long after. I don’t want a so called “tool” that’s going to hallucinate security problems into my work.