[flagged]
2030: By popular demand, we will accept code contributions received via a fax machine.
I wonder if anyone has already written a git over fax extension.
Codeberg: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions
31–40 of 80 posts
Re: Codeberg: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions
#32I'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.
Re: Codeberg: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
They dont allow private repos, why would they allow vibe-coded stuff. They're a quite opinioninated company
They are a non profit, not a company and you can have private repos. You are spreading misinformation.
Dude, just read the TOS, jesus: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/#how-about-pri...
It's not misinformation, just read their own page:
If you use more than 100 MB of private storage for the use cases mentioned earlier, please send us a request and we can evaluate it.
If you do not contribute to any free/libre software project at all, Codeberg is unfortunately not the right place for you. However, check out the alternatives, we're sure you'll find a cozy place for your work.
Re: Codeberg: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions
#34I'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)
Technically, depending on how "share" is to be interpreted, this addition does not retroactively make existing projects infringing.
Re: Codeberg: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions
#35Codeberg 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-…
> 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…
Codeberg, gogs, gitea and forgejo are all mostly cross-compatible. Their apis are for the most part the same, differentiating them serves no purpose AT ALL besides for ideological purposes. Just because codeberg wants to be this saint of FOSS doesn't mean they are really contributing anything else than riding the works of the forgejo/gitea team/gogs.
Re: Codeberg: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions
#36[flagged]
Beautiful way to combine a slippery slope argument with a strawman
Re: Codeberg: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions
#37Hahaha.
Re: Codeberg: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions
#38Well, guess I will take my repositories elsewhere.
Oh no, anyway...
Re: Codeberg: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Codeberg, gogs, gitea and forgejo are all mostly cross-compatible. Their apis are for the most part the same, differentiating them serves no purpose AT ALL besides for ideological purposes. Just because codeberg wants to be this saint of FOSS doesn't mean they are really contributing anything else than riding the works of the forgejo/gitea team/gogs.
Yes, forking is one of the beautiful things of open source. But again there is much more than just "riding the works" in the tight mutual relationship between Forgejo and Codeberg.
Re: Codeberg: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions
#40Well, 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"?
Everything seems to be working out fine then tbh :D