Proposal Assembly 2026: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions
codeberg.org
Here is the proposed addition for the ToU that @Gusted and I agreed on post-assembly for the upcoming membership vote. 🙏 The discussion for this proposal is available for Codeberg e. V. members in the forum: https://forum.codeberg.org/d/139-resolutions-for-assembly-on-codeberg-taking-a-stand-a...
  • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.worldEnglish
    58·
    14 hours ago

    A repo host that can remove your repo at any moment because someone can accuse your code of being “vibe coded” is not a repo host I’d trust. It shouldn’t matter how good, bad, or A.I. written your code is. It’s a hosting platform.

    • MrLLM@ani.socialEnglish
      3·
      6 hours ago

      I mean, I agree with you, but there’s still room for abuse.

      Have you seen OpenClaw’s issues page?

      Vibe coders and AI agents are floating it with garbage, if they were to do that to Codeberg, it’ll probably run out of resources pretty quickly

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      6 hours ago

      IMO everyone should have a local backup of everything they can get related to the repo. Like I know with git itself, anytime you clone the repo you get everything, but also the supporting stuff that is in the layer outside of git. IMO the host should mainly be the hub where everyone gets and interacts with the project, while everything else is already good to go in a new location, should the host either screw up in good faith, get corrupted by outside influences, or gets overrun by local or remote powers.

      This makes me a bit curious about whether the overall risk to projects is higher from individual local device failure or politics around who controls remote hosting services and the nature of the project.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          4 hours ago

          Yeah, as the other commenter mentioned, git is a distributed source control system, so all clones have the full history (though you can bump up the “starting point” to reduce the overhead of storing all previous commits).

          Hosts like github can add more features on top of that, which would have to be backed up separately, but you can automate the repository itself using a single command, which is the same command used to make a clone in the first place.

    • crimsonpoodle@pawb.socialEnglish
      15·
      12 hours ago

      I mean the host can always remove your repo. We’ll see how they handle it; but I would assume it won’t be without care. But yet another reason to host your own as well.

    • kayazere@feddit.nlEnglish
      11·
      12 hours ago

      The main argument is due to copyright issues of LLM generated code. Github will happily remove repos which violated copyright laws or IP laws. It makes sense that Codeberg doesn’t want to host code which may be violating copyright law.

      • XLE@piefed.socialEnglish
        2·
        7 hours ago

        And anybody could try to take down your repository by pointing to copyright law in general. Bad faith takedowns are not a new phenomenon.

      • Fedditor385@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        7 hours ago

        Then why not say it’s not allowed to upload code you don’t have copyright to? This would make sense, nobody would question it and it would generally also cover AI-generated code.

        Mentioning vibe coding just upgraded it into a social and moral topic, while the sole fact that AI generated code is no issue at all, just that there is not a general concensus in the world who holds the copyright to that code.

        It’s kinda like blanked banning cooking, because you can’t cook without a knife, and knife can be used as a weapon.

    • one_old_coder@piefed.socialEnglish
      8·
      12 hours ago

      I have the same feeling with SourceHut which bans projects related to crypto money. I think bitcoins is a stupid idea, but knowing that the owner of the site can ban you because of the stupid idea of the day is a very wrong idea.