It’s a tough spot, Codeberg has found themselves in and I wish them luck. But beyond that, this is (yet) another reminder that in 2026, if you don’t self host it, the cloud is just someone else computer
I fail to see why people are getting worked up. While yes the tos says the ambiguous “mostly” the rest of the paragraph gives you a clear indication why. Copyright. Which I the same reason many other platforms don’t level allow vibe code into their codebases.
CB does not want to host code a large number of repos that in the future could be classified as stolen code, and now as the code host will have to do the work of deleting it all when they get sued for hosting it. And you know right holders are just waiting to do that.
It’s more than just the ‘mostly’. In legal proceedings they would really struggle to ‘demonstrate cause’, i.e. what is copyrighted, and what is not - not to mention demonstrating criminal intent.
As I wrote before, these are phase 2 effects of a new emerging technology. All it will take is one company to go after them in court to reverse this.
What do you mean? They are perfectly in their right to enforce this rule, even if they couldn’t prove that their reasoning made sense. They are not obligated to host your slop
Alright, I just don’t understand what you mean by “a challenge in court”. In this case, you couldn’t challenge them on these rules, a court could do nothing about them.
How would it be legally challengeable? No one can be legally forced to host someone else’s data against their will, that sounds ludicrous, otherwise people could sue YouTube for removing their videos before they were legally required to.
The TOS are essentially a way to let you know what they will consider, but legally they can remove your repo without any reason, they’re not legally required to host your data.
Again, you’re right, but the TOS do need to be clear and unambiguous which this is not. This is - like a lot of Lemmy these days- a knee jerk response to a novel technology that’s not fully understood. That’s obvious because of how the rules are worded.
This opens them up to anti discrimination lawsuits - which are take quite serious in German courts. They would have to demonstrate that a user is banned from uploading work because it is “mostly” LLM generated and not because they are trans or black or something.
I know this is unpopular opinion on Lemmy atm, but this genie isn’t going back in the bottle. And it is very difficult to fence against because when used properly as an assisting tool, and not as an oracle of truth or a full self driving vibecoding machine, the code quality is basically indistinguishable from human code.
I’m not saying Codeberg can’t do this, I’m saying they will struggle once there is serious pushback on this and it will hopefully open up the discussions on copyright and their place in modern society. Akin to how guns are still made and used, but the more advanced countries have strict laws around who can purchase them and who can use them and for what purpose.
I’m not a law expert, but I think even in Germany you would need to prove a pattern not a one off banned a black/trans person to accuse of discrimination. Otherwise any negative repercussion to a black/trans person would generate a discrimination lawsuit, and that just seems absurd.
I assume that if codeberg forces this it will do so with the most egregious offenders, because like you have pointed out it’s impossible to differentiate good code written with AI tools from good code written without them, but bad code written with AI tools is sometimes very differentiable from bad code written without them. And at the end of the day they’re trying to safe-guard against lawsuits over it (as the person uploading the code is not the owner) and becoming a slop repository.
But also, here’s the thing, they’re not making money of you hosting your code there, so it’s much harder to force them to take someone’s data. You could force Google to host your photos if you were unjustly banned, you can’t force me to do so if you found a loophole to use my server for that.
Okay, so I lack the sources, so I ask others to please back me up; but isn’t this anything but settled law? There was something in the US but it was more of a recommendation than a law, and will have to be tested in court. Also, Codeberg is hosted in Germany, so its laws would apply there.
I still don’t see the problem with Codeberg’s decision. Of course they will kick projects that they don’t want, just like github will kick projects they don’t want. The issue isn’t what is and isn’t allowed, it’s who allows it, as it always has been.
Of course selfhosting is one way to control it, but in Codeberg there is a process to be part of that governance, which the author didn’t partake in. At which point there is nothing more to discuss, get in the governance first and then you can write a blog post about how the governance is bad, isn’t aligned with you or whatever.
It’s 2026. Who still expects things to be perfect with a third-party without participating ? Be part of the governance, selfhosted or not, always
The problem for me was the decision process and the piss poor way it was communicated, plain and simple. I’m absolutely fine with the decision in itself, it’s their platform and they can do that if they feel like it.
But instead of voting on an single agenda point about a small TOS change in a closed members meeting and dealing with the consequences later, I would have appreciated open communication and discussion on that topic not only among the members but also the user base before making such blanket decisions. As far as I heard there wasn’t even a real discussion among the members, it was just a vote on a TOS change, which was introduced and advertised by a member shortly before the meeting took place. I could be wrong on the last point, but these kinds of salami tactics or “Vereinsmeierei” in an association would make Codeberg an unreliable platform for hosting a project.
Like someone else in here has said, this time it was banning Crypto and LLMs, next time it could be Ruby on Rails (because of their ties to the racist entrepreneur DHH) or whatever TOS change makes it through their members-only voting process.
Again, that’s fine for Codeberg but it’s not a good place for any non-member to host a project.
I see your point and I think I agree. Maybe I’m willing to let it pass because I happen to agree with the decision (and would also agree with the hypothetical ban of Rails). Ultimately, it comes down to what you said: whatever you use, you should see how to become a full member
I don’t want to depend on a platform that rewrites its terms of service on a whim, without properly announcing that the change was even under consideration, and without giving its users a way to weigh in.
[…]
I wish it had linked to a discussion thread, or at the very least a poll, so that I could have voiced the concern I have
Then you should’ve joined Codeberg e.V. which gives you access to both a forum and a voting platform.
Well that’s just how Codeberg works. It’s run by volunteers and organized as a registered association. This association strives to be very democratic about what happens to the platform, but you have to join it to gain insights and voting rights.
Of course you don’t have to and most users of Codeberg don’t - but you can and this makes Codeberg a lot more open and democratic than any other commercial platform.
From what I understand from their blogpost, it was mostly about conserving their own resources, because a lot of the vibecoded projects they got were uploading insane amounts of binary releases and wasting resources on CI/CD while having no users or other collaborators.
They wanna reserve more server space for projects, that actually productively use it, like bigger FOSS projects with actual users and contributors.
That is perfectly understandable for me, even without taking my huge distaste for AI into consideration. Anyone that thinks, that this small, community funded project is obligated to host their huge slop repos semms pretty entitled to me.
before reading the blog post I was thinking the same. now I don’t.
the worst of the LLM projects have no place on codeberg that’s for sure, but there would have been better ways than a blanket ban to limit the resource consumption of LLM and crypto projects. codeberg already has a storage quota system, they could be giving a lower quota for LLM projects, maybe also disable free CI for them, which I am a bit surprised they have given. and solve the reputation problem with banners. but no, total blanket ban based on feelings, it is.
There is simply no way that is true. First, the legal arguments are dodgy:
There is a good chance that LLMs are sufficiently transformative that courts will decide they don’t infringe the copyright of their sources.
Even if not, hosts will get DMCA-style safe harbour protection and the most they’ll be liable for is takedown requests, which is a major thing for any large host.
Second, there is no fucking way a western court is going to tell every big tech company they have to delete 99% of the code that was written since the start of the year, even if the law as written literally said verbatim, “use of any LLM output for any purpose is breach of copyright” because it doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to realise that it’s politically impossible.
You may not like that, but it means that, again, Codeberg is doing this based on feels.
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.
People can upload code that violates copyright too. No llm required.
So if that is the concern have a rule about not violating copyright (which they may already have). And there is likely already a process for handling that.
This is the problem I have with the situation: the solution chosen (banning llm code) doesn’t really address the concerns they’ve raised directly. It’s just apologetics to make it sound like it’s reason-based rather than “we don’t like it”.
It’s their platform, they can do what they want, but let’s not pretend it’s not code-puritanism.
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.
LLMs cause a lot of people to unknowingly violate copyright, and those people then become easy targets for malicious copyright litigation. And Codeberg is caught in the middle of that and doesn’t want to be involved in the resulting mass legal cases because they are just a small volunteer organisation without a legal team.
And Codeberg’s explanation is very clear that is isn’t a blanket ban on LLM generated code for “purity” reasons. It is a risk mitigation strategy against projects that are mostly LLM generated.
What hasn’t happened? Sure, this isn’t wide spread yet, but it also took malicious law firms a while before they realized going after p2p torrent users is a lucrative business.
And I seem to have a much better grasp at copyright than you do.
P2P torrent users are nothing like a code hosting platform. 🤣
As has been said - their liability for llm code is no different from hosting any other code. They already have the same risk. And that is typically that they must respond to take-down notices which they are already doing.
They are already dealing with all of the problems they would be dealing with with llm code.
It’s just code puritanism wrapped in pseudo legal justification. Own it.
It is a totally different thing to have the occasional copyright take down request from a legitimate copyright holder, or hosting code that is in the majority likely copyright infringing and just waiting for someone to start targeting for mass copyright litigation.
It is not. There are plenty of studies showing that LLMs spit out code that is near verbatim to existing code and LLM companies even go so far as to instruct their models to not also add the corresponding license/copyright headers with that code.
There are probably law firms analysing common code patterns LLMs often use right now and are approaching copyright holders of similar enough code to buy up the rights. It might not all stand up in court, but it will be enough to scare some people into settling for fee that guarantees a profit for these law firms. This is a tried and true method for an entire industry of law firms.
You realized that those parts refer to two different things? But since you clearly live in a world entirely detached from reality I don’t think this makes sense to discuss further.
You know what’s funny? Codeberg has said nothing about being concerned about liability.
Their terms service change simply mentions that they require certain licenses and that they have concern over the licensing of LLM meeting that standard.
Event their follow up communication says absolutely nothing of liability.
LLMs cause a lot of people to unknowingly violate copyright, and those people then become easy targets for malicious copyright litigation
I’d buy that. As a mediocre musician, one can even subconsciously ‘sample’ a copyrighted piece. I mean, there are only so many chords and combinations, melodies, etc, so duplicates, and even exact duplicates are bound to happen whether intentional or not. If you upload your track to say SoundCloud on the professional plan with which you intend to generate revenue, the track is heavily scrutinized, and often rejected for this very reason. You actually have to prove it’s OC by various means. They don’t want any pieces parts of any litigation that may even mildly involve them. So, I can see that.
AIs already pillaged all the code in the world.
This is fighting a lost fight. We won’t manage to force big AI firms that literally props a country to stay afloat to make their AI “forget” or “untrained”.
Regulators let the pillaging happen so now AI does know how to code. They dont imitate they truly code.
But IMO the real fight is about things like malus that are the real dangerous and malevolent actor here. They will take your open source code and resell it to big businesses.
And you are also misunderstanding my point. Yes the cat is out of the bag and companies will absolutely copyright wash their codebases like that, but they have big legal teams to defend against copyright trolls and generally do not publish most of their code base for anyone to see.
Small hobbyist open-source projects that make up near 100% of the projects hosted on Codeberg on the other hand are easy marks for malicious litigation, just like home users torrenting movies were in the 1990ties and early 2000.
You’re right I wasn’t really thinking about the possibility of verbatim reproduction. I guess we’ll see about that.
Codeberg will need efficient procedures to handle IP trolls anyway, getting a bunch more takedown requests ought not to make a big difference. And if somehow it does start to be a problem… that would be the time to blanket ban or take similar drastic action. If it’s possible to detect now, it will be possible to detect then.
Politics will absolutely care about having a precedent which leaves big tech exposed. Any case against little fish will be jumped on by Zuck and Bezos before you can say “datacenter”.
No, these malicious law firms intentionally go after the small fish, who are much more likely to be intimidated and give in to a settlement payment before it even reaches the courts.
And for Codeberg it makes absolutly sense to minimize the issue for them now before it becomes an even bigger issue.
And all 3 hinge on the premise of courts will do ‘sane’ things, without any kind of justification for them. So yeah, all 3 are moot if you remove that assumption.
@FishFace Nothing is "politically impossible," and AI is not inevitable.
When rich people get out of hand, there is always the same correction that takes place, sooner or later. Right up until the very moment it happens, people with varying degrees of comfort in the existing regime are squawking that the world will end if we mess with the Load-Bearing Pedophiles.
They have less chance of making their tyranny permanent this time than at any previous time it has been tried.
Prepare your mind for the idea that you and everyone you know might have to personally pick up a shovel and dig, before the mess they are making right now gets cleaned up.
I think your feelings are irrelevant to the admins’ and don’t change the fact that they aren’t being honest (with people, or quite possibly themselves)
A) I haven’t tried to decide anything. I’ve commented on their public statement, with reasons.
B) since you don’t seem to have understood what I’m saying (see above, and previous comment) you’ve not given me any reason to care about your assessment of me.
You’re not interested in discussing my comment… just stop replying instead of calling me names?
Not true, this does not occur frequently. This study and software LiCoEval from 2024 found 0.88% to 2.01% of code “strikingly similar to existing open-source implementations”. Afaik this is mostly textbook examples, snippets from stack overflow snippets or common github repositories, often replicated api examples and language boilerplate. How you prompt and refine also matters, and for generating novel code or business logic the LLM simply cannot use memorized snippets.
Presumably since then LLMs have worked to reduce that number of memorized code. Since LLMs cannot memorize all their training data, that number is limited. LiCoEval can find the often memorized examples and train to remove them, or suppress them, or they find other ways to reduce direct reproduction from memorization. For example it would be possible to do what malus.sh does with all the training data. Then it cannot memorize copyrighted code.
So for a model that came out 2026 this already small number might not be that relevant anymore.
Copyright can also apply to code rewritten in another programming language, if the overall structure and functionality is identical. Although tbh, that is a bit of a grey area, and in previous rulings there is some precedence that if the “translation” involves significant human effort then it can be considered to be sufficiently transformative. But promting an LLM to “rewrite this in Go” very likely doesn’t pass that relatively high bar.
The study you linked is interesting (and likely underestimates the issue*), but it also shows that it is possible to automate detection of copyright infringing code in LLM output, and even just 2% is more than enough to open a case for malicious litigation. Large companies can write that off as the cost of doing business, but for small individual open-source developers this is a significant risk.
‘*’ Because human programmers usually reuse existing licensed code as libraries, while LLMs are prone to rewrite them, and as explained above a rewrite is at an elevated risk of being considered copyright infringing.
You can also set a LLMs to completely rewriting code snippets from scratch to perform the same function, writing and fulfilling the same unit tests. Not just rewrite in a different language or changing variable names. Basically the transformative abilities of LLMs can make copyright obsolete.
Basically the transformative abilities of LLMs can make copyright obsolete.
That is wishful thinking. Copyright was originally designed to protect human creativity, and a lot of the laws and precedence cases involve human effort specifically to distinguish between plagiats and original works.
As long as courts don’t start to rule otherwise, LLM generated code is not considered to be copyrightable itself, thus it can not be original work as defined under copyright laws. This in turn lowers the threashold for such code to be considered a derivative regardless of if there is a clear pathway from one to the other. All it takes is someone to claim that it is derivative, and the burden of proof that it isn’t largly falls onto the person accused. And if the code is functionally identical and with no significant human involvement, that is very hard to proove.
The IP law is purely a function of economic power, so we know how that will go. To the maximum benefit of the plutocrats that rule our global civilization.
But the more interesting part is the philosophical discovery: If a piece of code can be generated from scratch by a machine that is not creative, then any comparable piece of code is also not creative. In other words, only the very first time a new type of code or algorithm is written can there be creativity - if one follows your argument that LLM machines cannot be creative. This essentially raises the bar for copyright, and makes an objective test of what is copyrightable or not possible. If you can describe something in a prompt, and get a result of comparable function and quality to a human written version, that code is not creative either, therefor not copyrightable.
Obviously we’re not quite there yet, but the more LLMs improve, the less code becomes copyrightable.
Coding becomes pure craftsmanship, like cutting and sanding some lumber and nailing it together to build a shed.
So if we were a rational and logical species, the overwhelming amount of copyright would be deleted and become public domain. Because it is now worth only the cheap solar power needed to generate it.
An important consideration is that the usage of “AI” aka currently using like LLMs is viral, in a worse sense than eg.: the GPL is viral, and it’s completely understandable that some hosters would prefer to avoid the community problems that that causes.
As soon as you set quotas, you get assholes suddenly exploiting them to the max, who didn’t before when it was “unlimited”. Anyone involved in hosting services sees this happen time and time again.
We’re not talking about bad code, we’re talking about slop code. It’s different. It’s easy just to generate slop code, it is not so easy to code all by yourself.
Honestly, I am not effected by the decisions in any way, the issue I take is with the extremely vague wording, the fact that these two changes were made rather rapidly and seemingly just because they don’t like that type of project.
What is the next project that harms their reputation? A torrenting application? An emulation application? Anything written in php?
We wouldn’t and don’t take kindly to corpos using this kind of stuff, why would it be different here?
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.
The decisions did go through Codeberg’s own Assembly 2026, which is more process than most platforms bother with, and yet as an ordinary user I found out about it the way probably most people else did, through a dark blue banner at the top of the site on the day it was already settled.
I did not even get to know about this that way. Only now, a month later from some backyard forum.
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.
Why would you, unless you are a member of Codeberg e.V. with voting rights?
because as a user I may be affected by the rule. if you want people to follow your rules, not just to punish selectively based on them, you let everyone affacted know that you made a rule. because otherwise people won’t know the rule, and won’t follow it. and then you are an asshole if you complain that people didn’t follow rules they didn’t know were made.
That is not my understanding of the timeline. Yes, they asked their members to vote on it a month ago. But these votes take time, and once the vote was settled and the ToS adapted they immediatly put up the banner.
I think the “regret” post misses an entire point, that Codeberg doesn’t want to be the place where AI stuff is hosted. Maybe it wasn’t clear in their communications but it always seemed to me the copyright and resource stuff was more of a justification of something they wanted to do anyways.
Also everyone suggesting AI should just be treated as a tool comfortably ignores the externalized costs. Maybe there’s some “yeah it sucks but we can’t to anything and it so we just use it” and that’s it. I’m so tired of lengthy AI-is-just-a-tool justifications that are omitting the central point.
The article seems correct with the “Codeberg’s reputation” clause though. That one smells bad, not sure why they felt the need to add it.
If you’re running a site that anyone from the public can sign up to, resources are not some afterthought you add to your argument like pepper. Resources are everything. I have been on this Internet since NCSA Mosaic; look up the term “hugged to death”.
Would you be okay with a coding model that was trained only on open source software?
Would be definitely interesting to see a coding model trained only on GPL code, where that also made all of the output also automatically GPL licensed.
Frankly, I don’t see where the whole big deal of this story is.
People who don’t like codeberg can just go somewhere else (even back to github) and/or found/support an alternative that better suits their needs.
It’s not like the world needs to have one git hosting service to rule them all, it’s not like there must be free ones (entitled much?), and it’s not like whatever service happens to be the new “cool” one must be neutral as to what they host.
BTW, although to my knowledge their policy is not enforced super-strictly, codeberg has never been neutral in this regard — see 1 and 2
People who don’t like codeberg can just go somewhere else (even back to github) and/or found/support an alternative that better suits their needs.
searches
gitgud.io provides free GitLab hosting for open source projects.
gitlab.com has a free tier for personal/open source stuff, though looks like it has a 5 user limit on said free tier.
Gitea can be self-hosted. It doesn’t look like they provide free hosting themselves, though, just paid. Apparently it’s considerably less resource-intensive to host than GitLab.
GNU Savannah is available if one is writing projects under a specific set of licenses (the GPL family).
People who don’t like codeberg can just go somewhere else
And Codeberg literally makes it easier for them, as you can just download or git clone Forgejo directly from them! When have we ever seen a breakup so amicable.
And people also don’t understand the difference between a non profit managed in good will by people and a capitalist saas provider that has billions to spend in hundreds and hundreds of people to maintain an ever growing central place to host all corporate interests.
While I fully agree and support Codeberg stance on vibecoded projects I’m not sure I follow their reasoning here. For instance they complain about webcrawlers scraping their site to train their LLM models but I don’t see why getting rid of the vibecoded repositories wouldn’t make them more palatable for scrapers. A site full of human made code is infinitely more useful to those companies than a slop infested honeypot.
I’ll offer a comparison not yet mentioned in the context of hosting software, but which should sound familiar in the social media context: moderation is hard at scale.
By every metric of scale, Codeberg is a competitor to the behemoth that is GitHub. And that means they have to contend with tough choices, such as who and what to host on their servers, no different than BlueSky, Facebook, and the individual instances of the Fediverse. And to be clear, Codeberg has always been limited to FOSS projects anyway, so nobody can genuinely argue that limits weren’t in the cards.
The distinction is that less alike Meta, and more alike with the Fediverse, Codeberg takes no hostages: people with obvious AI repos (or even marginal repos, given the possible ambiguity) are free to take their code and leave. Yes, they have to rebuild their CI pipelines, but that’s always required for any platform, including self hosting.
The fact is that Codeberg is a centralized entity that needs to (try to) make consistent policy. In this case, they have a concern about copyright and nothing anyone says can magically dematerialize that risk. If their new policy is not agreeable, then decentralized self hosting is probably the only way forward. But that was always an option with ForgeJo and federation.
And indeed, folks moving from GitHub or elsewhere are not exactly without fair warning that they might have to migrate again; we’ve not reached a utopia yet.
if you don’t self host it, the cloud is just someone else computer
I pretty much said this in the other thread. Unless you own the platform, or a significant investor in said platform, you are subject to the whims of the platform, good, bad, or indifferent. Some don’t like that I guess because they feel like they supported the platform, may have contributed to the platform, but at the end of the day, the platform dictates law for the platform.
Kind of like lemmy.selfhosted. There are rules. If you don’t bother yourself with reading the rules before posting, you get what you get.
I’ll just note that they can make whatever decision they want, its their platform, and considering its just forgejo underneath - you can always take it and host your own.
Also, I think it coincidentally lines up quite nicely with what we have here for posting an AI project now. Anything at that Generated stage is going to count as “mostly”.
I find it disappointing that people are upset with codeberg over this.
Sometime in the last two years, the number of people consider themselves to be programmers has at least doubled. We have a giant contingent of people who have never gone through the hell of actually developing a skill but are now “developers” in much the same way that typing “make me a song like ______” now makes you a musician. No theory, no chords, no building of callouses, just load up our AutoPlagio and dance the night away!
And these sudden Developers and such are all very upset at having their legitimacy questioned by a bunch of… of… NERDS.
Its no different than when GarageBand was a thing - it was really accessible, so musicians who couldn’t figure out the tech side before (or didn’t want to pay money out for something) started using it heavily and really liked it. You also got an outsized influx of people who didn’t understand music who created a whole bunch of stuff that had… issues. You’d see people ask for feedback, and get constructive criticism, and they would just get pissed off at the lack of praise.
Which led to every time someone newer posted something they made, a bunch of comments about how horrible it was that people were pumping out garbage with GarageBand. The scale was much smaller obviously, but the results are the same as now imo.
I think some will start to us LLMs as a tool to get answers (instead of a stackoverflow link that is marked duplicate and the old post is gone or uses horribly outdated libraries), some will get lost thinking they are geniuses with unique prompt mastery, and others will move on. Time will tell though.
Have to say, when I’m strictly looking for hard info, like, what are the command line switches to achieve the right config for a thing, the AI is pretty much always right. It’s not without use, but Doing Things For You is not its best use.
The mission of Codeberg is to kill GitHub. If people won’t be able to transfer ALL their repos over, not concerning themselves with what is compatible, that would be substantially harder to achieve.
GitHub is a business making a profit from git hosting for corporations.
Codeberg is a non-profit explicitly for hosting free software projects (FOSS).
What is Codeberg? On Codeberg you can develop your own Free Software projects, contribute to other projects, browse through inspiring and useful free software, share your knowledge or build your projects a home on the web using Codeberg Pages, just to name a few.
I don’t think they’re delusional enough to think their mission is to singlehandedly kill proprietary software.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
Fewer Letters
More Letters
DNS
Domain Name Service/System
Git
Popular version control system, primarily for code
SSH
Secure Shell for remote terminal access
3 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 7 acronyms.
OOTL Wasn’t there something about forgejos capabilities to federate? I had the impression, that it would go the fediverse route with many interacting instances. Then everyone can make their own rules. There are many reason to moderate repos. So why is this such a big thing (if forgejo federates as I remembered from the back of my head)?
Because Codeberg is its own charity type thing they have a cohort of users that vote on decisions made and you cannot even see how they came to that decision because that area is restricted to them. Presumably they might not federate at all.
Agree but their stance on LLM content is a big put off for me. I don’t share my scripts and things I write with AI but I like to keep them all together.
And it concerns me that Codeberg is the guiding hand for the forjejo project.
Being able to self host a git forge was always possible, even before forgejo. Besides the gitea controversy I thought the federation to be the real killer feature.
So I guess I have to wait a bit more for the federation.
Yeah I stopped putting anything on codeberg and finished moving to sourcehut after they announced this. I’m stuck with Github due to work but policing whatever random repos I have and want source control is a bit of a dick move.
I have a local forjejo which replicates certain repos to Codeberg and others to Github. Now I have to adjust my integration.
I like it. We need more specialization of services and less centralization. If Codeberg is the “human-made FOSS forge” then that means something when you see a project on it. If that’s not your project, fine, there is plenty of competition (and Forgejo is open source just run it yourself).
Would be cool to see someone make a “vibehub” and then you know when you see a link to a project on there what you’re getting (depending on your opinion, good or bad)
