Live data from Hacker News

Codeberg Divides

lucumr.pocoo.org

11–20 of 242 posts

Re: Codeberg Divides

#11

Codeberg going down the path of Blueskyification

At the start bluesky was actually pretty nice, but now it's just this weird bubble where disagreements don't exist and when I checked out like a month ago there was just so much damn p***.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#12
I see. We should not divide into camps so the Austrians can sell their AI startups.

The only people dividing and ruining open source are those paid for it by AI companies. Sometimes indirectly, like NumPy through its various sponsors. Then suddenly a bureaucrat appears on a mailing list or elsewhere and announces that AI contributions need to be allowed.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#13
I'd rather have a way to quickly ID what deltas were generated and which were not but that will never happen if it becomes a weapon to ban a project.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#14
post #5

> There are serious questions about copyright, labor, energy use, slop, and maintainers drowning in generated contributions. But Way to not at all engage with any of that and just go on your merry way... Sure, if you fail to acknowledge that the other side has valid points, it is easy to act like you're completely right and they are morons, and we all need to Kumbaya together, and forget about their views.

The way I read the article was not that the author disagrees with the concerns you mention, but instead that they believe Codeberg's recent actions fail to address these underlying concerns while adding uncertainty for users of their platform (which they fear will ultimately hurt codeberg). To me, it reads as a call for further discussion and clarification rather than a dismissal.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#18
I think introducing unpredictable new prohibitions is a much bigger problem than the specific bans on cryptocurrency or AI written code. Especially when it leads to existing code becoming unavailable and doesn't just ban new contributions violating the rules.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#19
Agree substantially here, as I said elsewhere: the honest and respectful answer from the Codeberg community would have been: add resource limits, quotas, and a reviewed application form for new projects.

And maybe a statement that: Pre-existing clearly "vibe coded" projects providing little value to the community may be subject to review. Our resources are limited. Don't abuse them.

Instead it got framed in moralistic terms in many places, the actual voting process actively resisted all calls for clarification ("if you're a vibe coder you'll know, so stop trying to ask for clarification", the tone in online forums became nasty, and the result is both ambiguous and culturally poisoned and I decided to move my project ("good riddance!" call out the victors, "we got one of them!")

I do think the one substantial argument that was made through the threads, was around IP ownership laws. However I remain unconvinced.

Frankly if there's anywhere where I would most like to see AI generated work -- which is frankly based on weights generated from the broad and indiscriminate harvesting of other people's works -- is in copylefted software that takes the distillations of the efforts of the community and makes it available as free software with free software protections.

I understand not everyone shares that opinion, and they're welcome to different interpretations.

Like the author of the article I'm saddened to see this split. I am honestly curious to see where we are in 2-3 years on this topic.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#20
> It can choose to be a smaller community with a stronger political identity, but that is a different ambition from being a broad and dependable European alternative to GitHub.

Wrong category. It doesn't want to. It's not a company. Might as well act on their beliefs.

Devs are so spoiled with free CI, running nonsensical workflows all the time for free. Imagine that multiplied by magnitudes thanks to AI. Just a waste of resources.

Post reply on HN