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

111–120 of 242 posts

Re: Codeberg Divides

#111

Post by kstrauser »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #57
squigz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this happens with most communities. It's called growth. As an example, HN now has this in the guidelines: > Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans. Does this signify the end of HN? Or does it represent understandable growth in an evolving world?

It's not analogous at all. I moved my project to codeberg because the values were one way, and GitHub didn't match my values. I pour my heart and soul and time into my project. I also used AI tooling in a fashion as I saw fit. Now I'm reading I'm not welcome -- retroactively -- because I touched "bad" tools. So I had to spend the last 3 days dealing with all the fall out from that and moving my project -- which was n…

I'm with you on this. I started moving projects to Codeberg when my understanding of the rules was that it was friendly to FOSS projects. Now it's explicitly unfriendly to a set of FOSS projects (albeit of a kind that I didn't participate in anyway) and users who use a particular kind of tool while working on their otherwise OK FOSS projects.

Now you can have a perfectly legal GPL-licensed project that's not welcome because of the category it finds into or because of its devs' tooling. It's their site and their rules, sure, fine, but it does mean I'm not going to host my policy-compliant projects there. Are they going to get banned next month? Who knows.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#112

Post by Lerc »

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.

If you consider the argument of the comment at the top, that those who disagree with banning will leave. It would seem that you could expect an acceleration.

I have actually seen, from the inside, organisations implode though ideological purity demands.

No two people believe in all the same things. In the end this path reduces to one single shared value, That those with different values should be excluded.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#113

Post by addaon »

rpdillon wrote: post #80
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…

> 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 requires the code to be copyrighted, because copyright law is the mechanism that allows them to require users to agree to a license.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#114

Post by skeledrew »

lowsong wrote: post #59
skinfaxi wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without additional explanation this reads like flamebait.

Flippant maybe, but not bait. AI is many things, and a moral choice is one of them. Codeberg's stance isn't a moral one as much as a technical one, but there is a very strong argument that the use of AI is inherently immoral.

> there is a very strong argument that the use of AI is inherently immoral

Do say more.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#115

Post by warkdarrior »

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?

Is this the "contact our sales team for pricing" of open source?

Re: Codeberg Divides

#116

Post by yuriks »

cge wrote: post #65
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…

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.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#117

Post by miki123211 »

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 expert at AMD, a 16-year-old in Nairobi, or a nazi with a swastika tattooed on your arm. He cares about the quality of your kernel patches.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#118

Post by chasd00 »

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…

these things always end with community disintegration. Eventually, some high profile user will cross the undefined line or leaders change and want to rewrite the rule then half the community will side with them and half will not.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#119

Post by saghm »

bastawhiz wrote: post #90
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…

> how would I know I'll be accepted tomorrow This question exists for any service. Unless you host things yourself, there's a baseline amount of trust you have to have in any service.

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 the question of "How would I know I'll be able to access my money tomorrow?" is "This question exists for any bank" rather than actually giving any sort of reassurances?

Re: Codeberg Divides

#120

Post by nottorp »

abeyer wrote: post #105
delfinom wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think they were saying that there aren't reasons to not use github, in or out of the USA, but rather that codeberg was already not a contender for many use cases due to their existing rules restricting private/non-OSS repos.

It's apples to oranges. No matter how many reasons one has to avoid github, Codeberg is only an alternative for open source hosting.

Are there any alternatives that you could use for closed source development that aren't owned by US entities?

Post reply on HN