6 ms·

> They also don't want to host your homepage, so if GitHub Pages is why you used GitHub, they are not a replacement. https://docs.codeberg.org/codeberg-pages/

> They also don't want to host your homepage, so if GitHub Pages is why you used GitHub, they are not a replacement. https://docs.codeberg.org/codeberg-pages/ https://docs.codeberg.org/codeberg-pages/

noirscape 6mo ago
From their FAQ: > If you do not contribute to free/libre software (or if it is limited to your personal homepage), and we feel like you only abuse Codeberg for storing your commercial projects or media backups, we might get unhappy about that. Emphasis mine. This isn't about if it's technically possible (it certainly is), it's whether or not it's allowed by their platform policies. Their page publishing feature seems more like it's meant for projects and organizations rather than individual people. The way it's described here indicates that using them to host your own blog/portfolio/what have you is considered to be abusing their services.
- gzread 6mo ago
  and we feel like you only abuse Codeberg for storing your commercial projects or media backups Sounds like they're cool with a little personal website.
- johnisgood 6mo ago
  Reading what you quoted, no it is not, as long as you contribute to free software or you have projects that are open source. Not just your personal homepage. If you only have a personal homepage and nothing else that is open source, then they have a problem. My 2 cents.
  - noirscape 6mo ago
    Which makes it not really a suitable replacement for GitHub, which is my entire point. Keep in mind, I'm not saying Codeberg is bad, but it's terms of use are pretty clear in the sense that they only really want FOSS and anyone who has something other than FOSS better look elsewhere. GitHub allowed you to basically put up anything that's "yours" and the license wasn't really their concern - that isn't the case with Codeberg. It's not about price or anything either; it'd be fine if the offer was "either give us 5$ for the privilege of private repositories or only publish and contribute public FOSS code" - I'm fine paying cash for that if need be. One of the big draws of GitHub (and what got me to properly learn git) back in the day with GitHub Pages in particular was "I can write an HTML page, do a git push and anyone can see it". Then you throw on top an SSG (GitHub had out of the box support for Jekyll, but back then you could rig Travis CI up for other page generators if you knew what you were doing), and with a bit of technical knowledge, anyone could host a blog without the full on server stack. Codeberg cannot provide that sort of experience with their current terms of service. Even sourcehut has, from what I can tell, a more lenient approach to what they provide (and the only reason why I wouldn't recommend sourcehut as a GitHub replacement is because git-by-email isn't really workable for most people anymore). They encourage FOSS licensing, but from what I can tell don't force it in their platform policies. (The only thing they openly ban is cryptocurrency related projects, which seems fair because cryptocurrency is pretty much always associated with platform abuse.)
    - tjoff 6mo ago
      (SSG - static site generator) I mean, it is arguably much easier to just write the HTML page and upload it with FTP and everyone can see it. I never understood why github became a popular place to host your site in the first place.
      - radlad 6mo ago
        Because it doesn't require you to run an HTTP server, FTP server, or install an FTP client.
        tjoff 6mo ago
        Finding an HTTP+FTP server was easier than finding github. Your OS probably has a FTP client installed already, but finding another one is easier than finding and most definitely easier than learning git. And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too.
        radlad 6mo ago
        This is definitely a matter of perspective. I have had a Github account since 2010, and git comes installed on Linux and macOS. I don't always have a server available to host an HTTP+FTP server on. Or want to pay for one, or spend time setting one up. I can trust that Github Pages will have reasonable uptime, and I won't have to monitor it at all. > And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too. This seems unnecessarily aggressive, and I don't really understand where it's coming from. BTW, you can absolutely host plain HTML with Github Pages. No SSG required.
        lazyasciiart 6mo ago
        > And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too. That's a completely false statement. My kid took very basic programming classes in school which covered HTML so they could build webpages, which is a fantastic instant-results method. Hooray, now the class is finished, he wants to put it on the web. Just like millions of other kids who couldn't even spell FTP.
- enraged_camel 6mo ago
  That FAQ snippet is insane to me. Maybe it's a cultural thing but I'd never do business with a company that has implicit threats in their ToS based on something so completely arbitrary.
  - 0x3f 6mo ago
    The worst part is really the unclear procedure. If they set out terms that say they'll give me 4 weeks to migrate projects they don't like off the platform, with n email reminders in between, then that's not ideal but fine. As it is, I'd be worried I'll wake up to data loss if they get 'unhappy'. I have the same problem with sourcehut, actually, with their content policy.
    - cxr 6mo ago
      What an absurd double standard. The language is patterned after GitHub's own caveats about misuse of GitHub Pages: > you may receive a polite email from GitHub Support suggesting strategies[… such as, and including] moving to a different hosting service that might better fit your needs GitHub Pages has never been a free-for-all. The acceptable use policy makes it clear: > the primary focus of the Content posted in or through your Account to the Service should not be advertising or promotional[…] You may include static images, links, and promotional text in the README documents or project description sections associated with your Account, but they must be related to the project you are hosting on GitHub
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - semiquaver 6mo ago
    Nonprofit, not a company. as far as I can tell they don’t accept payment for anything so they don’t want your “business”.
    - jeremyjh 6mo ago
      Which is why they are not a Github replacement for everyone.
- shimman 6mo ago
  Seems fair to me, they're a nonprofit that exists in our lived reality and not an abusive monopolist that can literally throw a billion dollars to subsidize loss leaders. All it shows the world is why there needs to be a VAT like tax against US digital services to help drive a public option for developers. There's no reason why the people can't make our own solutions rather than be confined to abusive private US tech platforms.
  - germandiago 6mo ago
    Adding taxes to things does not help anyone and goes against free choice. A better alternative would be to create the incentives so that companies like these can be born in Europe.
    - era-epoch 6mo ago
      Companies like Microsoft should not be given "incentives to exist" anywhere (at least as they exist currently). They are corrosive to the public good.
      - germandiago 6mo ago
        Are you sure? Enumerate all the competition and associated technilogy this has enabled for decades: tooling, software, etc. I am not sure how someone should be entitled to prevent others from enjoying thr benefits of better technology. If you do not like it, just skip it, as I do.
        dtj1123 6mo ago
        Are you seriously trying to pitch the flaming garbage heap that is Microsoft Windows as "better technology"? Microsoft is a predator, they offer licenses to schools at a knock-down rate in order to nurture a dependency on their product. The volume of cash that has been extracted from the general populace in this way is obscene. To top it off they have gone out of their way to sabotage free and open competitors, limiting the market to their shitty and overpriced offerings.

noirscape 6mo ago

From their FAQ: > If you do not contribute to free/libre software (or if it is limited to your personal homepage), and we feel like you only abuse Codeberg for storing your commercial projects or media backups, we might get unhappy about that. Emphasis mine. This isn't about if it's technically possible (it certainly is), it's whether or not it's allowed by their platform policies. Their page publishing feature seems more like it's meant for projects and organizations rather than individual people. The way it's described here indicates that using them to host your own blog/portfolio/what have you is considered to be abusing their services.

gzread 6mo ago
and we feel like you only abuse Codeberg for storing your commercial projects or media backups Sounds like they're cool with a little personal website.
johnisgood 6mo ago
Reading what you quoted, no it is not, as long as you contribute to free software or you have projects that are open source. Not just your personal homepage. If you only have a personal homepage and nothing else that is open source, then they have a problem. My 2 cents.
- noirscape 6mo ago
  Which makes it not really a suitable replacement for GitHub, which is my entire point. Keep in mind, I'm not saying Codeberg is bad, but it's terms of use are pretty clear in the sense that they only really want FOSS and anyone who has something other than FOSS better look elsewhere. GitHub allowed you to basically put up anything that's "yours" and the license wasn't really their concern - that isn't the case with Codeberg. It's not about price or anything either; it'd be fine if the offer was "either give us 5$ for the privilege of private repositories or only publish and contribute public FOSS code" - I'm fine paying cash for that if need be. One of the big draws of GitHub (and what got me to properly learn git) back in the day with GitHub Pages in particular was "I can write an HTML page, do a git push and anyone can see it". Then you throw on top an SSG (GitHub had out of the box support for Jekyll, but back then you could rig Travis CI up for other page generators if you knew what you were doing), and with a bit of technical knowledge, anyone could host a blog without the full on server stack. Codeberg cannot provide that sort of experience with their current terms of service. Even sourcehut has, from what I can tell, a more lenient approach to what they provide (and the only reason why I wouldn't recommend sourcehut as a GitHub replacement is because git-by-email isn't really workable for most people anymore). They encourage FOSS licensing, but from what I can tell don't force it in their platform policies. (The only thing they openly ban is cryptocurrency related projects, which seems fair because cryptocurrency is pretty much always associated with platform abuse.)
  - tjoff 6mo ago
    (SSG - static site generator) I mean, it is arguably much easier to just write the HTML page and upload it with FTP and everyone can see it. I never understood why github became a popular place to host your site in the first place.
    - radlad 6mo ago
      Because it doesn't require you to run an HTTP server, FTP server, or install an FTP client.
      - tjoff 6mo ago
        Finding an HTTP+FTP server was easier than finding github. Your OS probably has a FTP client installed already, but finding another one is easier than finding and most definitely easier than learning git. And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too.
        radlad 6mo ago
        This is definitely a matter of perspective. I have had a Github account since 2010, and git comes installed on Linux and macOS. I don't always have a server available to host an HTTP+FTP server on. Or want to pay for one, or spend time setting one up. I can trust that Github Pages will have reasonable uptime, and I won't have to monitor it at all. > And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too. This seems unnecessarily aggressive, and I don't really understand where it's coming from. BTW, you can absolutely host plain HTML with Github Pages. No SSG required.
        lazyasciiart 6mo ago
        > And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too. That's a completely false statement. My kid took very basic programming classes in school which covered HTML so they could build webpages, which is a fantastic instant-results method. Hooray, now the class is finished, he wants to put it on the web. Just like millions of other kids who couldn't even spell FTP.
enraged_camel 6mo ago
That FAQ snippet is insane to me. Maybe it's a cultural thing but I'd never do business with a company that has implicit threats in their ToS based on something so completely arbitrary.
- 0x3f 6mo ago
  The worst part is really the unclear procedure. If they set out terms that say they'll give me 4 weeks to migrate projects they don't like off the platform, with n email reminders in between, then that's not ideal but fine. As it is, I'd be worried I'll wake up to data loss if they get 'unhappy'. I have the same problem with sourcehut, actually, with their content policy.
  - cxr 6mo ago
    What an absurd double standard. The language is patterned after GitHub's own caveats about misuse of GitHub Pages: > you may receive a polite email from GitHub Support suggesting strategies[… such as, and including] moving to a different hosting service that might better fit your needs GitHub Pages has never been a free-for-all. The acceptable use policy makes it clear: > the primary focus of the Content posted in or through your Account to the Service should not be advertising or promotional[…] You may include static images, links, and promotional text in the README documents or project description sections associated with your Account, but they must be related to the project you are hosting on GitHub
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- semiquaver 6mo ago
  Nonprofit, not a company. as far as I can tell they don’t accept payment for anything so they don’t want your “business”.
  - jeremyjh 6mo ago
    Which is why they are not a Github replacement for everyone.
shimman 6mo ago
Seems fair to me, they're a nonprofit that exists in our lived reality and not an abusive monopolist that can literally throw a billion dollars to subsidize loss leaders. All it shows the world is why there needs to be a VAT like tax against US digital services to help drive a public option for developers. There's no reason why the people can't make our own solutions rather than be confined to abusive private US tech platforms.
- germandiago 6mo ago
  Adding taxes to things does not help anyone and goes against free choice. A better alternative would be to create the incentives so that companies like these can be born in Europe.
  - era-epoch 6mo ago
    Companies like Microsoft should not be given "incentives to exist" anywhere (at least as they exist currently). They are corrosive to the public good.
    - germandiago 6mo ago
      Are you sure? Enumerate all the competition and associated technilogy this has enabled for decades: tooling, software, etc. I am not sure how someone should be entitled to prevent others from enjoying thr benefits of better technology. If you do not like it, just skip it, as I do.
      - dtj1123 6mo ago
        Are you seriously trying to pitch the flaming garbage heap that is Microsoft Windows as "better technology"? Microsoft is a predator, they offer licenses to schools at a knock-down rate in order to nurture a dependency on their product. The volume of cash that has been extracted from the general populace in this way is obscene. To top it off they have gone out of their way to sabotage free and open competitors, limiting the market to their shitty and overpriced offerings.