Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

blog.codeberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 168 posts

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#41

Post by RamblingCTO »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #31
TheChaplain wrote: post #4

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.

I had a somewhat active GPL/copylefted project on there for 11 months, but I didn't even see a point in signing up as "community member" to become a part of the registered voting community in order to vote ... because from reading the threads around this it was already an indiscriminate pile-on of moralism and judgement and it was clear where things were going to go from day one. Any voices that said anything on the…

I respect that you tried to argue with people so bound to black and white thinking that they have the need to filter out anyone with any ambivalence or diverging opinion that they are creating a closely monitored and moderated filter bubble at all. I'm just staying miles away from those codeberg, gitea, fediverse people. Sad and not beneficial to democracy, but why bother?

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#42

Post by cmrdporcupine »

bcye wrote: post #3
jaredcwhite wrote: post #2

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.

The article literally says they intend to selectively enforce this rule and not be strict with it?

... and leave it completely up to their own personal judgement on when and how to apply their rules, and on public forums people who asked for more clarity on "boundaries" were called "creeps" and other insults.

That's not healthy democratic culture.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#43

Post by xeyownt »

JohnFen wrote: post #37
grokcodec wrote: post #35

Many of their points ring true - increased pressure on maintainers, LLMs turning coders into paper pushers, the erosion of community. Regarding discussion here o democracy - pure democracy can lead to suppression of minority views. Democracy can mean 6 / 10 people voting to beat the crap out of the other 4. The US, for example, is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic, with checks and balances to prevent s…

> The US, for example, is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic The US is both. Or, to phrase it another way, it is neither a pure democracy nor a pure republic. That's a good thing, it helps to reduce the downsides of both.

Not sure what good you see. Recent history events show that whatever the US is, it is certainly not good.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#44

Post by graemep »

conartist6 wrote: post #36
croemer wrote: post #22

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: > 7. 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 no…

I was wondering if copyright was part of it, but their blog post didn't mention copyright. For me that would be the single biggest reason. People who vibe code don't legally own the copyright to the output (to the best of my hobbyist-non-lawyer knowledge), so they cannot themselves provide permission for others to be able to legally copy.

> so they cannot themselves provide permission for others to be able to legally copy.

If something is not covered by copyright law then others do not need permission to copy it. However, you cannot impose conditions on copying it either (not even minimal conditions like the 2 clause BSD license).

However you can enforce licenses in jurisdictions where even pure vibe-coded LLM output is covered by copyright. So you might find yourself in a position where, for example, you can enforce the GPL on your vibe-coded software on someone in the UK, but not someone in the US.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#45

Post by xeyownt »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #42
bcye wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article literally says they intend to selectively enforce this rule and not be strict with it?

... and leave it completely up to their own personal judgement on when and how to apply their rules, and on public forums people who asked for more clarity on "boundaries" were called "creeps" and other insults. That's not healthy democratic culture.

Called by whom?

Since when is Codeberg responsible of the Internet culture?

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#46

Post by wongarsu »

inemesitaffia wrote: post #28
omnimus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's safe to say it's reasonable to majority of codeberg members. It doesn't really matter if it seems unreasonable from the outside.

You wouldn't say that about the above example. Especially given several Global South countries see it as an example of foreign interference.

The important difference is that leaving Codeberg forever is much easier and lower impact than leaving your country forever

Switching costs are a core part why certain governance methods work on the internet but not in real life. Similar reason to why dictatorships work well for companies and open source projects, but not governments

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#49

Post by kstenerud »

croemer wrote: post #22

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: > 7. 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 no…

[flagged]

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#50

Post by [deleted] »

nylonstrung wrote: post #14

> 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. This seems fully orthogonal to whether LLMs are use…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN