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

Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

codeberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 720 posts

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#641

Post by rvz »

selfhoster1312 wrote: post #416
rvz wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes the decision to not use Codeberg even easier for many. If you are after a sustainable and stable code repository to host your projects then Codeberg disqualified themselves. It goes down regularly as much as GitHub and loses to GitHub on discovery. Now, you can potentially lose your entire account and projects by posting a repo that can have AI with auto-complete. If Linus Torvalds (pro-AI) published his s…

Bad example, you obviously didn't read the codeberg ToS. Codeberg banned projects that « mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools ». subsurface is apparently quality software with different contributors, and in the recent commit history i only saw a handful of commits assisted by LLMs. subsurface is not slop and is therefore not targeted by the codeberg ToS update.

> Codeberg banned projects that « mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools ».

Since you studied the entire policy, what is the methodology in determining a project that uses generative AI-tools or not that covers the ban? What does "mostly" mean here? Is there a percentage defined? Or did they look at sourcehut's Anti-AI policy and start from there?

This is actually a good example since people can just fork existing "human made" software, (Free software permits you to do that) and run agents on it and hide the "slop" commits to circumvent that policy. Maybe someone would like in Rust and use an agent to do that. Or continue it as is but just adding new features quickly.

> subsurface is not slop and is therefore not targeted by the codeberg ToS update.

...for now and it will eventually have more gen AI code anyway.

subsurface already has generative AI tools committing to the code base and the presence of the CLAUDE.md guarantees that. The same can be said with Vim which has an AGENTS.md allowing AI contributions.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#642

Post by [deleted] »

inigyou wrote: post #627
fluoridation wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To name one easy example, for-profit companies don't have ideological goals. But just for the sake of argument I'll grant it and amend my statement: What is usually meant by "we don't do politics" is that an institution or organization will avoid picking sides on irrelevant political issues. A cat shelter doesn't need to have an official position on abortion to function, and in all likelihood having one would be coun…

Maximizing profit is already an ideological goal. Some companies have others subordinate to it. For example Microsoft is committed to stack ranking, Google is committed to only promoting people who ship new products and then kill them, Apple is committed to each team not knowing what the other is doing so they don't leak it, and Oracle is committed to suing its customers for more money.

[deleted]

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#643

Post by matheusmoreira »

close04 wrote: post #525
matheusmoreira wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That rule's for HN comments, not submissions. Nobody's getting kicked out for vibecoding a project.

You’re trying to make a meaningless distinction to justify holding different parties to different standards: comments are HN’s core content, code is Codeberg’s core content. HN submissions are links to other platform, so not HN content. Codeberg will let you have links to AI generated content on another platform (like a GH link) so that’s not a worthwhile distinction. Each platform states a “no AI generated content o…

That's fair.

HN is a social network. Its value is human comments. People come here to see what the tech circles are saying.

A git host's value is in the source code it hosts, not who wrote it. Before all this, Codeberg was all about free software. This has a very precise definition. Free software communities used to gatekeep based on a very simple test: is it free software or proprietary software? The problem is people have started gatekeeping cryptocurrency, LLM usage. The definitions are imprecise, there's no telling where it's going to stop, and it causes needless fragmentation.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#644

Post by 0x3f »

Oxodao wrote: post #571
0x3f wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit of an inappropriate comparison though, since restaurants are ubiquitous and reasonable GitHub alternatives are vanishingly rare. People are quite rightly more troubled when providers in a low-cardinality space become unviable.

GitHub, Gitlab, Bitbucket, Codeberg, SourceForge, SourceHut, and that's just from the top of my head. That's not what I call "vanishingly rare"

Only GitHub and Gitlab have a large intersection of features. You can probably choose around one from the rest of the list, if they happen to have what you need.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#645

Post by tkel »

iamnothere wrote: post #190
mbreese wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And has a very vocal/opinionated owner. You know what you're getting with Sourcehut. (And I don't mean that in a bad way). Rightly or wrongly, Codeberg had a different feel. For a while it felt like it was trying to be a refuge from Github. But then again, maybe that was projecting something on them that they didn't intend.

Once again, the stability of a BDFL is vindicated. Democracy works ok in extremely complex systems like giant distros—Debian’s governance is slow but functional—but it seems to need guardrails around the process. (From what I can tell, an excruciating process is the best guardrail. Glacially slow decision-making means that mobs burn themselves out before they get to voting.)

BDFL is worse for all the reasons you mention.

Stability? A BDFL can make decisions at a whim that radically destabilize and change the project. Lording over and causing immense harm to the community without any sort of accountability is a recipe for disaster.

Good for everyone? A BDFL can unilaterally make decisions that prioritize their own desires over everyone else. It becomes about their personality rather than the project.

Functional? A BDFL is less functional, seeing how there is no requirement that the BDFL do anything that the community of people actually wants.

If you're saying you're opposed to democracy because you don't like the decision that codeberg reached democratically, the BDFL can do the exact same thing. Except the process is far worse, because there is literally no input from anyone else on making the decision.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#646

Post by [deleted] »

inigyou wrote: post #639
TaLiTr wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could write a script that could tell you the sum total of red and black pixels. This is more like asking someone colorblind which shade of red the image is closer to.

You don't know which parts of your project are AI output? And even if you did know, you couldn't know whether it was mostly AI or mostly not AI?

[deleted]

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#647

Post by insane_dreamer »

bko wrote: post #437
hogwasher wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather companies actually care (or even just care about seeming to care) about ethics, rather than only caring what makes the line go up the fastest, yes. A company that treats ethics as optional, or that thinks "it's a business" excuses every imaginable sin, is one that will happily screw you and me over too. Also, in the long term, making climate change worse is a catastrophically bad decision for absolutely ev…

I'd rather companies just provide me a service at a reasonable price. I don't need a corporation imposing it's ethics on me.

then pay for GitHub; Codeberg is free, for FOSS. You're not their target user.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#648

Post by insane_dreamer »

bArray wrote: post #367

I don't think you want to store your source code in a place where they ban projects based on politics [1]: > Allowing these projects is not a neutral stance; the effects to the environment are severe. The "DarkFi" (seemingly some crypto designed for criminals, citing an FBI director) project for example uses a "PoW blockchain" (per their readme). PoW (Proof-Of-Work) projects waste an astonishing amount of computation…

I'd say Microsoft is pretty political. But you're welcome to continue using Github. No one's asking you to host your FOSS projects (for free) on Codeberg.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#649

Post by matheusmoreira »

fodkodrasz wrote: post #628
archagon wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, really? And what uncomfortable truths have you been slinging?

Honestly? I don't remember exactly, something about a software project not being automatically bad for not implementing a code of conduct praising certain sexual deviances (woof)? I clearly remember why my account with lots of photos was deleted from mastodon.social without warning: There was a poll "Have you donated to the Antifa", two options: no / I'm a fascist. I replied there is some more nuance to the topic, al…

I joined mastodon.social not too long ago... How unfortunate.

Do you know of any fediverse that won't instaban me if I accidentally post some wrongthink?

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#650

Post by iepathos »

LtWorf wrote: post #483
iepathos wrote: post #239

Prohibiting fraud or infrastructure abuse is one thing, but declaring entire categories of lawful software harmful to Codeberg’s reputation is another. They've ironically tanked Codeberg's reputation far more from these policy changes than any projects in that category could have possibly. After these changes, it is difficult for any business, or any project seeking stable infrastructure, to trust that its codebase w…

Probably for the kind of users codeberg wants to have, this boosts their reputation.

Perhaps, but it's important to keep in mind not even a majority of Codeberg users voted for this. A majority of their privileged voters did, which is a small minority of the actual users, and it wasn't unanimous amongst the voters. Over 30% of their voters did not agree with this choice. I'm not building crypto or vibecoded projects and this still makes me seriously question if I could trust Codeberg's current majority voters to not simply target other minority software categories without real justification just because they didn't personally approve of it.
Post reply on HN