Codeberg going down the path of Blueskyification
[dead]
Codeberg Divides
201–210 of 242 posts
Re: Codeberg Divides
#202Re: Codeberg Divides
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Typical hn comment: xenophobia, hyperbole, wishful thinking, missing the point, cynicism and cheap sarcasm. You managed to hit all of them. Congrats.
I love it. How can it be seem as xenophobia, if I am from Berlin? From the dictionary: "Xenophobia refers to the irrational fear or dislike of people from different countries or cultures, often resulting in discrimination and social exclusion." I guess you are exactly part of the problem.
OK, like I'm supposed to guess that it's not xenophobia, it's the fabled German sense of humour instead. Saying hateful things is not any better if you're directing it at the people around you. You got the gist of what I was saying, please don't pretend otherwise.
Re: Codeberg Divides
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
The outcome is obviously going to be that most coders leave Codeberg because LLMs are not going anywhere, and they will continue to be integrating into people's workflows. But perhaps Codeberg intends on becoming something akin to a digital Amish community, and there's nothing wrong with that.
The current adoption of LLMs by developers seems to be a bit more than 20%. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/06/about-1-i... This is just for professional jobs (and is 9 months old) of course.
That's an incredible rate of adoption given that this stuff has only been really usable for the past year or so.
Re: Codeberg Divides
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve seen so many variations of this where a community starts adding more rules that are open to judgment. Removing the obvious rule breakers looks like an easy win at first. Then over time the list of rules grows. Small groups become good at navigating the rule making process and getting changes pushed through. Before you know it, small groups of highly invested people are wielding the rules and the rule making proc…
>Before you know it, small groups of highly invested people are wielding the rules and the rule making process against their enemies or competitors. Now that you mention it, Wikipedia also has a policy against LLM contributions.
Importantly, Wikipedia's policy is a bit more detailed about what LLM contributions are and aren't allowed. There is always ambiguity, but going through specific cases and examples up front in the policy went a long way.
Re: Codeberg Divides
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the outcome is that most vibe-coders leave Codeberg alone, that seems like a win for Codeberg.
The outcome is obviously going to be that most coders leave Codeberg because LLMs are not going anywhere, and they will continue to be integrating into people's workflows. But perhaps Codeberg intends on becoming something akin to a digital Amish community, and there's nothing wrong with that.
"Not going anywhere" is such a strange argument. Tomato juice isn't going anywhere, does it mean I'm going to be guzzling it at some point in my life? What?
If you've made your choice about LLMs based on morals or ethics rather than the quality of the tooling, you're not going to change that choice because the models haven't disappeared or have improved, unless you're forced to (but that forced bit applies only to commercial open source which really just isn't on Codeberg at all in the first place).
It has been long enough that just about everyone has made that choice by now. Those who are okay with this won't magically flip and start using LLMs and grow a reason to leave.
Re: Codeberg Divides
#207I 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…
I think we should point out that Codeberg is a e.V. and that they have a Mission Statement [1]
> The mission of Codeberg e.V. is to build and maintain a free collaboration platform for creating, archiving, and preserving code and to document its development process.
[1] https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/#...
As I understand it, they do not ban Crypto. Crypto is just an example for a category of projects that harm there reputation. The formulation for AI generated code is different. It does not point out AI / LLMs as example for copyright issues. It does it the other way around.
Re: Codeberg Divides
#208Earlier 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?
Codeberg did make such a rule. Their announcement explicitly says that "Projects heavily tied to the LLM ecosytem" are "no longer [...] welcome on Codeberg". The code for an AI agent would definitely fall into that category.
That's not true. The new "rule" say:
> 7. You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).
https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/71149c7fc95ccfeae36...
Re: Codeberg Divides
#209The facts are missing in the Article. The changes really made by Codeberg e.V.
are:
First:
> 7. You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).
Second:
> - Content that harms the reputation of Codeberg, such as cryptocurrency related projects.
Re: Codeberg Divides
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current adoption of LLMs by developers seems to be a bit more than 20%. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/06/about-1-i... This is just for professional jobs (and is 9 months old) of course.
That's an incredible rate of adoption given that this stuff has only been really usable for the past year or so.
It sure is! But I guess it would be less fun to say "1 out of 5 developers will not be using Codeberg going forward". Especially since that may well be an intended effect of Codeberg's decision here.
As long as AI is a source of environmental damage, cognitive harm, and a cause of rising hardware costs, there will always be a sizeable set of developers who want nothing to do with it. The headline should be "AI Divides".