Since the blog post doesn't actually include the change to the TOS and only links to it at the very end, here it is:<p>> 7. You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as <i>Claude</i>, <i>OpenAI Codex</i>). 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).<p><a href="https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/96fac426a32d1ba91ff879366d59bf1af54080c2" rel="nofollow">https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/96fac426a32d1ba91ff...</a>
I don't really see a problem with this decision (or the one regarding crypto), they were voted on by the active members of Codeberg, simply a democratic outcome.
Ridiculous. Any liability is solved through the terms and conditions, where the uploader is held responsible. The uploader solves this, by holding the AI company responsible.<p>I couldn't care less about if AI was used to develop software, if it does what it is supposed to do, and if it is secure. Bad software can be produced with or without AI, so ultimately it is up to _you_ to vet the software you use if you don't pay anything for it.
+1. Membership is open. The vote was given to members.<p>This is all reasonable.<p>I will have to move my projects off Codeberg, but that's okay. We have incompatible views. No grudges.
The fact that decision was democratic is independent from whether it is good and reasonable.<p>Anti-homosexuality laws were also voted on democratically.
lol closed door voting is not democratic.
Not being a US citizen* means I cannot vote in US elections, thus it is a closed door vote by your reckoning and so the US is not democratic. Did I get that right?<p>*This is shorthand for me not being associated with the US in any way, but you are of course free to reply with all the edge cases that makes the point impossible to state briefly.
Who do you think should be voting if not their active users?
It is still democratic, what would be you preferred way to do it?
“closed door” is a bit disingenuous considering any private individual codeberg user can apply to become an active voting member <a href="https://join.codeberg.org/" rel="nofollow">https://join.codeberg.org/</a>
thanks for addressing the source of the problems as `LLMs` and not AI in general.
I wonder how this turns out longer-term. Obviously more and more software development is moving to LLMs. But depending on how principled codeberg ends up about enforcing this, a project being on codeberg might end up as a strong signal that the project is not ai-slop (either made by hand, or at least by humans who care about the project)
> To us, it seems ridiculous to see projects with a single developer and virtually no users consuming as much or even more resources than some of the largest community projects on Codeberg, which operate frugal with CI/CD and storage resources. We do not believe it is reasonable for Codeberg to invest our precious donation money into hosting of large ghost projects.<p>This seems fully orthogonal to whether LLMs are used or not
Kudos to them and others who take a principled stance against LLM crapola.
[flagged]
[dead]
Huzzah! This is excellent news. Safe spaces and healthy communities are borne from enforcing strict moderation to keep the bad actors out. This is an important step forward for the platform.
> Civic infrastructure, its users, and the environment suffer<p>Larp detected. Also, is GitHub really so bad? I don't use any of the fancy features, I just push and pull code from it and it's basically never down for that. And if Github ultimately does die I can just point my repos at a new server and hit `git push`.