I'd avoid using overly opinionated code hosters that capriciously change their ToS to ban content that was allowed before without a very good reason. I'd like my code to survive long after I stop maintaining it, and such changes reduce my trust that a hoster will achieve that.
(This specific change wouldn't affect me, since all the code I published was written without AI)
I think this is a case where it's a net positive to have both. If Codeberg's opinionated mission isn't aligned with your personal approach to code, you definitely shouldn't host there, but it's genuinely hugely valuable that it exists for those who do share their vision. Both approaches can coexist & it seems net positive to have that diversity of services available.
In terms of the risk of data loss -notwithstanding that having any codehost as your sole storage location without backups seems unwise for anything you value - Codeberg's approach to handling ToS violations has to date been extremely personal & not overly automated, so it's reasonably safe to assume artifacts won't be deleted without appropriate notice.
> Well, guess I will take my repositories elsewhere.
When someone tells you "We cannot afford to support you anymore", do you also reply "Well, I'll take this burden to someone else who will be grateful to eat some cost in supporting me"?
Codeberg is just a nice logo wrapped around Forgejo/Gitea.
I don't really see the appeal besides free hosting + some storage.
People should either self-host a gitea/forgejo/gogs server for like 3$ a month on hetzner or just use gitea.com.
If you want to share your repos, just use sharemygit.com and spread the repo on coding forums. Personally I find this a much better stimulant for a community, then just having free-flowing code spread around like dust under a bed.
+ you actually dont need to be the victim of the whims of some ideological git-server provider. Ahem github (master->main), codeberg (no private repos are allowed), gitlab (you have to pay) etc. etc.
> Codeberg is just a nice logo wrapped around Forgejo/Gitea.
Not true. Codeberg is first of all a downstream fork [0] of Forgejo, making adaptations for high-scale use. And it offers additional services that Forgejo does not offer. Then it has a full-blown non-profit organization around it that enables community participation. It is the presidium of the community members that decided on the new ToU.
Forgejo is a hard fork of Gitea with a GPLv3 license, instead of MIT. Codeberg used to be based on Gitea, but it no longer does for many years now.
Private repos are allowed, although with some restrictions:
Private repositories are only allowed for things required for FLOSS projects, like storing secrets, team-internal discussions or hiding projects from the public until they're ready for usage and/or contribution. They are also allowed for really small & personal stuff like your journal, config files, ideas or notes, but explicitly not as a personal cloud or media storage.
This is reasonable: Codeberg is specifically set up to be a code host for open-source projects, not for closed-source commercial code.
This is a bit strange. Are they saying that Codeberg no longer accepts vibe coded projects at all?
If so, it seems kind of short sighted. Within a very short period of time all code will be AI code. What then?
And as the models improve, along with better code will come better bug fixing etc etc. So the quality of AI code will absolutely surpass that of human code. What then?
Will the repositories demand proof of programming ability? Why, when AI will be handling everything anyway. It would be rather like driving schools mandating that all drivers can strip an engine before they're allowed to drive? Very odd.
> So the quality of AI code will absolutely surpass that of human code. What then?
If they change their opinions in the future, they can reevaluate their stance and update their terms.
I love using LLMs for coding, but I think it's absolutely fine if people make different decisions. In fact, I think trying to maintain code repositories that are free of LLM-generated code is extremely valuable.
> If so, it seems kind of short sighted. Within a very short period of time all code will be AI code. What then?
Then you'll use one of the many, many providers who will host your code. Why is it so important to you that this specific provider has to host vibe-coded stuff when you can host it anywhere else? Is "rest of the world" not a big enough place for you?
Then all digital systems will be compromised and our civilization will collapse. Without internet and computers, we would all be living happy farmer lives.
> It would be rather like driving schools mandating that all drivers can strip an engine before they're allowed to drive?
It took decades of manufacturers ramping up reliability to the point that driving schools didn't teach you how to change spark plugs, oil swaps and how to change a tire on the road side. I did my license around 2010 in Germany and changing a tire plus how to check for oil and coolant levels was part of the curriculum.
And similarly, AI has to go through that "ripening" as well before it can be trusted. At the moment, there is no solution even found on how to prevent hallucinations or in-band signalling attacks, much less actually validated at scale.
Great decision from Codeberg. I’m only becoming more and more happy with my decision to transition away from GitHub.
Thank you so much codeberg for supporting
I'd avoid using overly opinionated code hosters that capriciously change their ToS to ban content that was allowed before without a very good reason. I'd like my code to survive long after I stop maintaining it, and such changes reduce my trust that a hoster will achieve that.
(This specific change wouldn't affect me, since all the code I published was written without AI)
I think this is a case where it's a net positive to have both. If Codeberg's opinionated mission isn't aligned with your personal approach to code, you definitely shouldn't host there, but it's genuinely hugely valuable that it exists for those who do share their vision. Both approaches can coexist & it seems net positive to have that diversity of services available.
In terms of the risk of data loss -notwithstanding that having any codehost as your sole storage location without backups seems unwise for anything you value - Codeberg's approach to handling ToS violations has to date been extremely personal & not overly automated, so it's reasonably safe to assume artifacts won't be deleted without appropriate notice.
Technically, depending on how "share" is to be interpreted, this addition does not retroactively make existing projects infringing.
Hahaha.
Recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386
(2h ago, 89 points, 145 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386
Well, guess I will take my repositories elsewhere.
> Well, guess I will take my repositories elsewhere.
When someone tells you "We cannot afford to support you anymore", do you also reply "Well, I'll take this burden to someone else who will be grateful to eat some cost in supporting me"?
Oh no, anyway...
Thank you for respecting the new ToU.
Self-host ahem. Do it.
Codeberg is just a nice logo wrapped around Forgejo/Gitea.
I don't really see the appeal besides free hosting + some storage.
People should either self-host a gitea/forgejo/gogs server for like 3$ a month on hetzner or just use gitea.com.
If you want to share your repos, just use sharemygit.com and spread the repo on coding forums. Personally I find this a much better stimulant for a community, then just having free-flowing code spread around like dust under a bed.
+ you actually dont need to be the victim of the whims of some ideological git-server provider. Ahem github (master->main), codeberg (no private repos are allowed), gitlab (you have to pay) etc. etc.
> Codeberg is just a nice logo wrapped around Forgejo/Gitea.
Not true. Codeberg is first of all a downstream fork [0] of Forgejo, making adaptations for high-scale use. And it offers additional services that Forgejo does not offer. Then it has a full-blown non-profit organization around it that enables community participation. It is the presidium of the community members that decided on the new ToU.
Forgejo is a hard fork of Gitea with a GPLv3 license, instead of MIT. Codeberg used to be based on Gitea, but it no longer does for many years now.
[0] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg-Infrastructure/forgejo
Codeberg launched forgejo and are the ones behind it.
Private repos are allowed, although with some restrictions:
Private repositories are only allowed for things required for FLOSS projects, like storing secrets, team-internal discussions or hiding projects from the public until they're ready for usage and/or contribution. They are also allowed for really small & personal stuff like your journal, config files, ideas or notes, but explicitly not as a personal cloud or media storage.
This is reasonable: Codeberg is specifically set up to be a code host for open-source projects, not for closed-source commercial code.
This is a bit strange. Are they saying that Codeberg no longer accepts vibe coded projects at all?
If so, it seems kind of short sighted. Within a very short period of time all code will be AI code. What then?
And as the models improve, along with better code will come better bug fixing etc etc. So the quality of AI code will absolutely surpass that of human code. What then?
Will the repositories demand proof of programming ability? Why, when AI will be handling everything anyway. It would be rather like driving schools mandating that all drivers can strip an engine before they're allowed to drive? Very odd.
> So the quality of AI code will absolutely surpass that of human code. What then?
If they change their opinions in the future, they can reevaluate their stance and update their terms.
I love using LLMs for coding, but I think it's absolutely fine if people make different decisions. In fact, I think trying to maintain code repositories that are free of LLM-generated code is extremely valuable.
The terms in question don't even mention quality issues. The argument is about the unclear copyright status of generated code. Also malware risk.
> If so, it seems kind of short sighted. Within a very short period of time all code will be AI code. What then?
Then you'll use one of the many, many providers who will host your code. Why is it so important to you that this specific provider has to host vibe-coded stuff when you can host it anywhere else? Is "rest of the world" not a big enough place for you?
> What then?
Then all digital systems will be compromised and our civilization will collapse. Without internet and computers, we would all be living happy farmer lives.
Codeberg is for free software.
> It would be rather like driving schools mandating that all drivers can strip an engine before they're allowed to drive?
It took decades of manufacturers ramping up reliability to the point that driving schools didn't teach you how to change spark plugs, oil swaps and how to change a tire on the road side. I did my license around 2010 in Germany and changing a tire plus how to check for oil and coolant levels was part of the curriculum.
And similarly, AI has to go through that "ripening" as well before it can be trusted. At the moment, there is no solution even found on how to prevent hallucinations or in-band signalling attacks, much less actually validated at scale.
> So the quality of AI code will absolutely surpass that of human code.
This is unfounded speculation, presented as inevitable fact.
They dont allow private repos, why would they allow vibe-coded stuff. They're a quite opinioninated company