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

141–150 of 242 posts

Re: Codeberg Divides

#141

Post by cge »

yuriks wrote: post #116
cge wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, for me, both. While I can't find something specific about it in the new ToS, the new blog post notes that "side projects and experiments", and "specific tools and custom scripts that would be unlikely to find a community anyway" are "discouraged", but are "tolerated in practice" if they only use minimal resources. This is stated as being regardless of LLM use. So some of my repositories are apparently alrea…

My read of the "side projects and experiments" part of the blog post is that, in the context of LLM projects , if your project does not use resources and isn't looking to attract a community then, if only due to the practicalities of moderation/enforcement, they're unlikely to take any action against it because it won't be visible or causing enough problems.

Asking about this, it seems like that might be the case: they likely intended the "even if they were not LLM-generated" to be counterfactual. It's an unfortunate place to leave such grammatical ambiguity.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#142

Post by theshrike79 »

mariusor wrote: post #87
aliasxneo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That seems like a completely different concern than what you originally stated? I started with a hypothetical. Then I used an actual real-world example. I have 100+ repos on GitHub spanning a wide array of technologies. If I moved all 100+ over, how do I know I won't fall afoul of whatever the community votes to ban next? The point is Codeberg isn't a good fit for my situation which needs more continuity and less s…

Have you considered actually asking someone at Codeberg about your cryptography project?

Who would one ask to get an official and enforceable answer?

I don’t want an opinion, I need a definitive ruling I can trust.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#143

Post by kam »

addaon wrote: post #113
rpdillon wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> sqlite is in the public domain and not copyrightable, for example. And therefore is not licensable under the GPL; because no license is needed at all. Ardour's goal isn't to be "compatible with" the GPL (in the sense of allowing binaries to be built containing both GPL-licensed code and their own code); their goal is to be covered by the GPL license for the purpose of constraining what actions users can take. This…

Ardour does not seem to require a CLA or copyright assignment, so the maintainers don't own the copyright over contributions either way. The contributor would not be able to sue someone over a GPL violation if their contribution is public domain, but what random small contributor is going to participate in a GPL infringement suit anyway? Doesn't change the maintainer's rights to do so with any of their own human-authored contributions.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#144

Post by mcv »

free_bip wrote: post #27
aliasxneo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Is it not obvious? They've just done it. They've excluded people based on new rules, and not everybody was expecting those new rules.

Having done it once, they can clearly do it again. Will it be justified? Who knows? Will it exclude you? Maybe.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#145

Post by mcv »

nmz wrote: post #79
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.

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 h…

Codeberg is not a company. Also, we're not talking about jail. We're talking about principles.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#146

Post by johnny22 »

striking wrote: post #138
miki123211 wrote: post #117

This is the problem with choosing platform for moral — instead of practical — reasons. Platforms that are known for making moral judgments will likely keep making moral judgments in the future. Eventually, they'll make a judgment that you heavily disagree with. This is why communities founded on ideology tend to shatter, while those founded on a shared goal tend to survive. Linus doesn't care whether you're a GPU exp…

He does have some choice words for you if you're Russian, though: > As to sending me a revert patch — please use whatever mush you call brains. I'm Finnish. Did you think I'd be ‘supporting’ Russian aggression? (from https://therecord.media/linus-torvalds-russian-linux-kernel-... ) I think this shows that there is a blurry line between moral and practical judgment, and that the type of judgment might not even matter…

his personal stance did not lead to anybody being excluded though.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#147

Post by voidnullvalue »

WolfeReader wrote: post #103
2001zhaozhao wrote: post #73

I write almost all code with GenAI nowadays. I'd like to say it's not slop, but I guess now there's no way to get Codeberg to agree.

"Write" is not the correct verb for how you produce software if you get it from GenAI. May I suggest a few replacements? "Plagiarize" or "excrete" are both more fitting in different ways.

[flagged]

Re: Codeberg Divides

#148

Post by Pay08 »

bigbuppo wrote: post #131
Pay08 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention what happens when these rules cease to be rules on purely technical matters. What if they make a rule against the site allowing hosting the code *of* AI agents for example?

Then you have your agent create you your own codeberg, with blackjack, and hookers.

Can the LLM also materialise a server and free electricity for me?

Re: Codeberg Divides

#150

Post by saghm »

skydhash wrote: post #125
saghm wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the baseline amount of trust seems to be substantially reduced for Codeberg for a lot of people in the wake of this change relative to most of the other options. I don't even necessarily think the new policy is bad in a vacuum, but if the strongest argument for why you can trust a service is "well can you really trust anyone 100%?", it's hard not to be a little wary. Would you use a bank if their response to…

It does exists for any bank. Where I'm at, the assurance is given by the national bank, not the individual banks. Anything else is just probability and marketing. In Codeberg case, what I would be looking at is the actual banning process, not "assurance" they won't ban me later. It's a Germany-based institution, if Germany applies a whole sanction to my country, I'm gone anyway.

> It does exists for any bank.

No one is disputing the existence of the question.

> In Codeberg case, what I would be looking at is the actual banning process, not "assurance" they won't ban me later.

Okay, so then, what actually is the banning process? The recent changes sound like the banning process has been expanded to cover a lot of new things that it didn't before, and stating "well anyone can ban you" isn't particularly helpful information, which was the point I was making.

Post reply on HN