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

Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

codeberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–298 of 298 posts

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#291

Post by skeledrew »

thih9 wrote: post #284
skeledrew wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> eat your own crap Technically you do. Every living thing eats it's own and every other living thing's crap. Just that it's recycled - through other living things - crap (does it stop being "your own" when it's processed by another?).

What if you crap so much and your craps are so pervasive that you cannot find anyone else’s crap but yours - unprocessed, or with very little processing.

That too is covered. There are even living things that need to feed on the crap of their own kind to survive. It's all possible in the web of evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#292

Post by badsectoracula »

customguy wrote: post #275
badsectoracula wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is only your own interpretation. It is one that does conform to the rule but only because it takes one extreme side of the potential "amount" of allowed genAI use. However this isn't what the terms update state. If that was the meaning then they would have explicitly written "zero" - or something along these lines. The fact they didn't do that (despite the update being there for weeks and people were able to vot…

> "If you have shit on your shoe, please don't walk across our carpet". Even if you could afford the equipment to make sure you don't have a single molecule of shit on your shoe, you couldn't operate it. Most people couldn't. So what gives? How is it possible that people have parties and then not endless discussions for decades and centuries about this unsolvable issue, right up there with how many angels can dance o…

Can't you respond to a message without barely relevant comparisons? :-P

> If you are worried it's too much, "the wrong kind", whatever, you simply ask them.

If you have to ask them, then having terms of use is pointless. The entire point of ToU is to explain how one can use the service, if you have to "ask" then the terms are not doing their job properly.

Of course people aren't perfect and can write vague or misleading ToU - and considering i've seen the same questions about that "mostly" part here, on Reddit, on Mastodon, on Twitter, on Discord, on blogposts and even their bugtracker[0] where they claimed their blog post on the matter will clarify things, which it didn't, there is no question that the terms are inadequate here - but the response to that isn't to try and guess what they possibly could mean, the response is for the terms to be clarified.

If Codeberg wanted to tell people who use LLMs in their projects that those projects are not welcome there, then they should have put that in their terms of use in clear and unambiguous wording.

[0] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#293

Post by matkoniecz »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #277
matkoniecz wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claiming that all autocomplete is AI is clearly wrong, so I am not enthusiastic about your advise.

All autocomplete is machine generated, the result is the same, unclear copyright, potential slob, not human typed.

Are you serious here? Also about basic autocomplete based on words in the current file or variables in context of given function?

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#294

Post by seanclayton »

no-name-here wrote: post #243
adisguy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rare to see terms of use that are all actively enforced. I think it makes sense to state the outlines to justify e.g. banning a user, or in potential legal matters (IANAL, just assuming).

True, but it still enhances uncertainty for users - if you uploaded trade secrets, malware, etc you already had that uncertainty, now you also have it for whether your code will be deemed too high a percent AI, when you thought it was only ~1/3 AI or whatever.

Using any AI code is a risk of ban on codeberg. Just write it yourself and no one can say it's written by AI.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#295

Post by bxff »

frabcus wrote: post #89
frabcus wrote: post #80

Germany copyright law feels like the relevant thing here - Codeberg is a non-profit based in Germany. Best quick English language overview of status that I could find: https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2026/germany/when-can-a... It looks like Codeberg want only copyrighted material in their service, so it is reliable in the future that e.g. licenses must be followed (e.g. GPL), and copyright doesn't suddenly get d…

Given a German court talked about not having the prompt logs making it hard in a specific case to prove it had sufficient human input, maybe someone could do an open source hosting service where the Claude Code logs were fully uploaded with each commit, so that could be later proven? It would be cool anyway to have such a service, so people could learn how to do LLM coding better from the examples.

If I had to guess this would make distillation 'attacks' easier, and I am not sure if it's allowed under most AI labs ToS. Anthropic goes pretty hard against keeping Claude Codes session histories local, opting to delete them if they aren't touched in the last 30 days by default.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#296

Post by bxff »

lionkor wrote: post #107
olalonde wrote: post #81

It would be cool if they just admitted that this is ideologically motivated rather than hide behind pragmatic excuses. 1) "unclear copyright status" Even if the copyright concern was legitimate (highly doubt so), Codeberg would be fully protected under safe harbor laws. 2) "little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code" Inclusion of harmful code is no more likely than human-extruded code (probably…

> fully protected under safe harbor laws Well, not quite, it would still have to deal with handling and moderating copyright claims under German law. So while it's not a legal issue, it's definitely overhead for a nonprofit. > Inclusion of harmful code is no more likely than human-extruded code (probably less actually). Based on what? So if I set up a markov chain and generate a couple ten thousand lines of python co…

> Harmful code does not mean purposefully harmful, it could simply be accidental (like when an agent goes "hm, an instance is already running, let's ensure that doesn't happen" and adds a `pkill -9 myprogram` invocation to a script, unknowingly killing all processes that contain the word `myprogram`). It could also be code that claims to do one thing, but does another, or one that ends up logging auth keys, etc.

> I have had SOTA models do all of the above. Not sure about more or less likely than human code, but since LLMs can generate thousands of lines per hour, that tips the scales.

I'd be willing to wager that SOTA models are far less likely to write harmful code than random human beings. Models are far less likely to make mistakes as they continuously keep getting better, while every human may differ in their abilities at writing 'good' code.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#297

Post by samatman »

customguy wrote: post #229
akmarinov wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean Codeberg will pretty soon start having to ask. How do they determine that and who'll be in charge to find violations there?

Before Codeberg has to ask that, the person who would upload has to ask it themselves. People know what they did, or didn't. "If you have shit on your shoe, please don't walk across our carpet". "But how do they know? maybe we should test if they can tell", and all that stuff... no. Most people would simply take a good look, and if they're worried about something that could be be mud or not, brush it off just in case…

It's actually a good comparison.

Because if a club had a prominently posted rule "no shit on the soles of your shoe", I would not be asking "Well, how much shit is on the soles of my shoe?"

I would be asking, "How likely is it, that I'm going to get a couple drinks in me, and then get cornered by frowning men who need to inspect my shoe soles for shit traces? How would I feel after passing the no-shit-on-shoes challenge?"

Then I would find another club.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#298

Post by samatman »

lionkor wrote: post #115
veeti wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you look at how German anti-nuclear lobbying set Europe back decades on its energy independence and made us dependent on authoritarian hellholes of the world, it all makes sense. They just want to do the same with AI.

Open source code that is AI authored is worthless. If I need an LLM authored, idk, terminal emulator, I will simply ask my AI or use one of the tens of thousands out there.

Like Ghostty, you mean? The best terminal emulator out there?
Post reply on HN