Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs — Codeberg News
blog.codeberg.org
In Brief: Two motions regarding
  • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
    6·
    19 hours ago

    I can’t see the future, but this all doesn’t sound like an ideological “vibe code is bad, we don’t allow it” but a “the copyright of vibe coded content is unclear across jurisdictions, we don’t allow it.” So I don’t think it’s something they’ll say “hey, this looks vibe coded, deleted.” Many projects self proclaim they’re vibe coded. Many projects list every commit that is vibe coded. It seems likely they’ll go after those projects instead.

    But yes, I’m not an oracle, and Codeberg could always heel turn and turn this into a witch hunt, but I don’t think they’ve earned that reputation.

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      17 hours ago

      It does sound like “vibe code bad”.

      Because if they were actually concerned about copyright, they would ban all LLM code, not just some LLM code.

      There is no need for a repository hosting software to decide what people are allowed to upload unless it is literal Nazi or kiddy diddle content or something else illegal.

      • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
        4·
        17 hours ago

        Did you not read the actual change?

        1. You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by “generative AI”-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). 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).