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

Codeberg Divides

lucumr.pocoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 242 posts

Re: Codeberg Divides

#71

Post by cge »

free_bip wrote: post #56
aliasxneo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are effectively saying you do not trust the judgement of the community to accept you long term. Correct. I was previously engaging with this community and had moved some repos over from GitHub. One of those repos deals with cryptography that has an intersection with "crypto" projects. Due to vagueness of the language ratified, it's unclear whether the repo now violates the ToS. This completely caught me off gua…

That seems like a completely different concern than what you originally stated? You're not worried about future policies, you're worried about the policy that was just passed. And for what it's worth, it seems like they only care if the project is directly crypto related (e.g if you had a repo directly implementing a Monero node, that would probably not be allowed). If it's just a repo that implements a generic Crypt…

>And for what it's worth, it seems like they only care if the project is directly crypto related (e.g if you had a repo directly implementing a Monero node, that would probably not be allowed).

Looking at community conversations, there actually seems to be little clarity over this, and quite a bit of confusion. Several established members of the community seem to be saying that the ToS actually only bans "cryptocurrency related projects" that "[harm] the reputation of Codeberg", and that direct cryptocurrency projects that don't harm Codeberg's reputation are actually allowed, saying that the current banner is a mistake and is in the process of being changed (while they have their own systems and are not on Codeberg, I'm guessing GNU Taler might be an example of a cryptocurrency project that would be allowed). In fact, this appears to be within the official interpretation used when locking the discussion thread on the change ([1] refers to [2]).

[1] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1254#issuecomment-19... [2] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1254#issuecomment-19...

Re: Codeberg Divides

#72

Post by card_zero »

aliasxneo wrote: post #52
johnfn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the burden of proof is on you to argue that Codeberg will stop at exactly two policies, given they haven’t said they will do that, but they have already banned things they don’t like. A slippery slope argument isn't a fallacy when you've already slipped down the slope twice.

I really don't understand the argument, to be honest. If somebody is participating in something with a perceived expectation, and then that expectation gets contradicted not once, but twice, why is it unreasonable to assume it might happen again? I'm not being facetious, I genuinely don't understand the line of thinking.

If they have a coherent set of values, then that's why. Then you have a theory of mind about the admins, and they weren't behaving erratically, but it was your original expectations that were incorrect.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#75

Post by pasquinelli »

qweqwe14 wrote: post #43
pferde wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's exactly it. Now please go back to your githubs and leave us nerds who do not matter alone. We'll be fine, we promise!

1. Random dude self-hosts a Git instance 2. Gets mad that people he doesn't like DARE to sign up and use it 3. Announces that he won't allow people he doesn't like 4. Makes a big deal out of it like anyone cares I dunno this is hilarious but pretty sad, the guy clearly has issues

how did you even come to know about this story no one cares about?

Re: Codeberg Divides

#76

Post by nmz »

aliasxneo wrote: post #23
free_bip wrote: post #21

I think this move by Codeberg is lowkey genius. They're trying to build a community based on a set of shared values. Those who disagree with those values are now self-selecting out of the Codeberg community, which is exactly the point of passing these kinds of resolutions. The fact that the rule is open for interpretation means that they can effectively shut down malicious actors (i.e those who intentionally misrepre…

Based on this precedence, if I'm accepted into the community today, how would I know I'll be accepted tomorrow? If you're literally just using Codeberg as a mirror, then sure, it doesn't really matter much. But like you said, that's not what they are building. They want people to invest in the community. So now, as an investor of my hard-earned free time, I'm faced with the question on whether all my investment can g…

1. This precedence is based on law or on the abscence of it.

2. Slippery slope fallacy.

3. Anarchy or Tyranny are not the only modes of operation. -- See point 2

Re: Codeberg Divides

#77

Post by delfinom »

qweqwe14 wrote: post #25
free_bip wrote: post #21

I think this move by Codeberg is lowkey genius. They're trying to build a community based on a set of shared values. Those who disagree with those values are now self-selecting out of the Codeberg community, which is exactly the point of passing these kinds of resolutions. The fact that the rule is open for interpretation means that they can effectively shut down malicious actors (i.e those who intentionally misrepre…

[flagged]

Funny enough if you read their blogpost on this, they don't want people with useless toy projects, they want projects with communities...(subtext: to leech off of).

That blog post while on the LLM topic also started throwing the OSS bathwater out and went straight-on leech mode in between the lines.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#78

Post by delfinom »

nottorp wrote: post #37

> Since I want GitHub to face competition I have thoughts. Github allows private repos, organization access control etc. I don't see how Codeberg is competition.

Codeberg was competition for the EU, in the topic of tech-sovereignty which is a incredibly hot topic in the EU. With the US abusing it's position not only recently but years past, the EU is accelerating funding and plans to decouple from anything the US can mess with legally. Much of that sentiment has been spreading all over the EU governments and software communities.

GitHub for all its purposes remains a platform hostile to EU interests long term.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#79

Post by nmz »

johnfn wrote: post #38
free_bip wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are effectively saying you do not trust the judgement of the community to accept you long term. Why is that? Is it because you believe there would be a new policy that would exclude your workflow? What would such a policy be? Do you really, reasonably believe it would be implemented "tomorrow"? Do you think adapting to such a policy would be unreasonable? Or is it because you don't trust the judgement of the peop…

I think the burden of proof is on you to argue that Codeberg will stop at exactly two policies, given they haven’t said they will do that, but they have already banned things they don’t like. A slippery slope argument isn't a fallacy when you've already slipped down the slope twice.

They won't. No company will, I think the best quote I've heard this week is from the proton CEO on the Decoder podcast.

"No company is going to jail for you."

If vibe code is of questionable legality, then the best thing to do is to remain guarded until its legal standing is determined. It is simply an added bonus that it prevents slop that consumes data on servers for projects that nobody cares about enough to not have vibe coded.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#80

Post by rpdillon »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #47

I have no particular problem with this decision/policy on the part of Codeberg. I do have an issue with their "tainted code" project that labels various FLOSS projects as "AI tainted". ardour.org has the follow AI policy statement: --------- Using LLMs to generate code for Ardour A word about licensing, copyright and LLMs ("AI"). We require all code contributed to Ardour to be licensed under the GPL (you may retain c…

They didn't consult a lawyer when they wrote that. The idea that public domain code that is not copyrightable is incompatible with the GPL is simply not true. sqlite is in the public domain and not copyrightable, for example.

Their decision leans too heavily on what that court decision said. It was actually fairly nuanced.

The court explicitly declined to address whether Thaler could be considered the author because he created the AI, because Thaler originally listed the machine as the sole author in his registration application.

It is clear that works generated entirely by AI without meaningful human contribution are not eligible for copyright protection, though it does not resolve questions regarding AI-assisted works where human input is significant, which is a predominant use case with AI-assisted coding.

Finally, it appears they're unfamiliar with copyright rules around non-copyrightable works that are combined with other creative copyrightable works. The result is almost universally copyrightable. I'm hedging because I haven't thought through the cases exhaustively, but I can't think of a single case where the resulting work would not be copyrightable.

Post reply on HN