4 ms·

They banned cypto projects two weeks ago. Today they banned vibecoded projects. https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html https://bl

They banned cypto projects two weeks ago. Today they banned vibecoded projects. https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-...

mbreese 3mo ago
That's a controversial stance. The first statement of not using codeberg hosted projects to train LLMs makes sense. But to outright ban LLM coded projects seems just silly. If the problem is that users have too many vibe coded projects, then limiting the number of projects seems like a more reasonable stance. To completely ban vibe coded projects just limits the number of users that will use them. I get that this is being spun as an effort to save resources, but this is a pretty blunt way to accomplish this. And a great way to alienate a lot of potential users. It's their service and they can choose what they want to host. Maybe they don't see themselves as competing with Github and Gitlab and so they are happy serving the users they have. But to me this does not seem to be a great growth strategy.
- axus 3mo ago
  I think you're right, quotas have been around as long as multi-user systems. Their argument was economic, an economic solution would be good: "It seems like many ‘vibe coders’ don't realize that they don't actually have a community around them. They build projects as if they had, and spend resources accordingly. We see projects having a lot of code activity, heavy CI/CD testing, frequent and large release binaries. Sometimes, it feels like the amount of supported platforms exceeds the amount of actual users. To us, it seems ridiculous to see projects with a single developer and virtually no users consuming as much or even more resources than some of the largest community projects on Codeberg, which operate frugal with CI/CD and storage resources. We do not believe it is reasonable for Codeberg to invest our precious donation money into hosting of large ghost projects" Ultimately, democracy is a respectable form of government and the group is free to change their mind later.
- rtpg 3mo ago
  > To completely ban vibe coded projects just limits the number of users that will use them. here lies the fundamental misunderstanding by many people in this thread. Is the objective of Codeberg to host as many projects as possible on its own server? I do not believe so! The question then becomes "what is Codeberg's objectives?" It's not to become the world's largest code forge instance! It's to build a set of FOSS tools for FOSS software development. Look at [0], for example, which lists alternatives. But perhaps most importantly, the FOSS tooling can be self hosted, right? There's still a notion of freedom there. [0] https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/#what-is-codeberg-e.v.%3F https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/#...
- throw49404040 3mo ago
  Silly is how it is handled and communicated. I want clear rules, not a rant that electricity is expensive! I have bunch of projects and sites there for a year+, most of them are llm generated. What is a grace period for existing projects to move? What are criteria for deciding what is "vibe coded"? If i get banned, is the repo just deleted, or made readonly... Codeberg had outage for last 5 days, where some repos could not be commited into. I expected post mortem analysis, not this debate!
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    > what is a grace period Immediate. They can be deleted tomorrow. > What are criteria Common sense > Is the repo just deleted Probably. What would be the point of archiving (what they perceive as) garbage?
- joepie91_ 3mo ago
  Given that they're a non-profit membership association with explicitly political goals where every new user represents a direct cost to the organization, and not a startup on a comfortable cushion of VC moneybags looking to pump the numbers for a quick acquisition, I very much doubt that a "growth strategy" is what they're going for here.
echelon 3mo ago
They obviously care more about social performance than code. They just tanked my interest in ever checking them out.
simonw 3mo ago
I'm not crazy about this: > We acknowledge that many developers have started to embrace LLMs as a tool in their workflows. Some use it extensively and rarely code by hand, others delegate only specific tasks to it. We understand that you want to know how the change affects your projects going forward. While we can't give an easy answer, we'll share some remarks that should address most of the concerns raised in the discussion. Where terms and conditions are concerned I really do value "easy answers".
- matheusmoreira 3mo ago
  They have no idea what "slop" is. They don't want to have to define it with any precision. Ironically, these rules will be enforced based on vibes.
  - what 3mo ago
    They will just put it to user vote, same way all their policy is decided. > The second vote was more controversial, but was also accepted with 358 agreements vs 144 disagreements (and 14 abstentions), with a high voter turn-out of around 50% of active members.
    - hparadiz 3mo ago
      [flagged]
      - DANmode 3mo ago
        High School keeps being funded, though.
      - squigz 3mo ago
        What do you propose is a better way of deciding things?
        hparadiz 3mo ago
        Sometimes the right move is to do nothing.
kajman 3mo ago
> So while the following use cases are discouraged (similar to private repositories), they are likely to be tolerated in practice: > Side projects and experiments with little resource usage > Specific tools and custom scripts that would be unlikely to find a community anyway, even if they were not LLM-generated I really don't want to join a commons where something I make might be "tolerated in practice" based on a given moderator's vibe. Which I suppose is the message I was meant to receive from the issue that passed the vote.
- imtringued 3mo ago
  "Side projects with little resource usage" Wow so they banned literally everything?
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    It's an opinionated charity host for free software. Are you actually making free software or just dumping your junk that is technically free but no one uses? If the latter, they're telling you to go away.
    - imtringued 3mo ago
      They reserved the right to ban anything based on exceedingly vague policies. Whether something is someone's side project or not is independent of the amount of users or the presence of a community. They can now ban any project with a single maintainer that exceeds an arbitrary resource limit. Basically they're putting a gun to your head demanding you to always be popular enough to curry their favour. When you think about how most projects start unpopular by definition, the only way to host on Codeberg is first by becoming popular on another platform and then moving to Codeberg, but if that is true why bother migrating? The moment your project's popularity fades or you lose maintainers, the project will get axed by Codeberg. So basically the lesson you're getting here is to not trust the altruistic stranger. His motivations are less sincere than the ones of the self interested stranger.
      - 3mo ago
whateveracct 3mo ago
wow so codeberg is goated?
- Cider9986 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - whateveracct 3mo ago
    i'm not an idiot. i can just a git repo in a variety of ways. it's just a bunch of text.
not_your_vase 3mo ago
Oh, shoot. Though I don't have many vibecoded projects, when I decided to move to Codeberg from Github the first project I pushed to codeberg was a vibecoded one I guess there is a bright side too: it forces me to selfhost my repos, something I planned to do since years.
timmmmmmay 3mo ago
this is fun! I'm excited to see what they'll ban two weeks from now

mbreese 3mo ago

That's a controversial stance. The first statement of not using codeberg hosted projects to train LLMs makes sense. But to outright ban LLM coded projects seems just silly. If the problem is that users have too many vibe coded projects, then limiting the number of projects seems like a more reasonable stance. To completely ban vibe coded projects just limits the number of users that will use them. I get that this is being spun as an effort to save resources, but this is a pretty blunt way to accomplish this. And a great way to alienate a lot of potential users. It's their service and they can choose what they want to host. Maybe they don't see themselves as competing with Github and Gitlab and so they are happy serving the users they have. But to me this does not seem to be a great growth strategy.

axus 3mo ago
I think you're right, quotas have been around as long as multi-user systems. Their argument was economic, an economic solution would be good: "It seems like many ‘vibe coders’ don't realize that they don't actually have a community around them. They build projects as if they had, and spend resources accordingly. We see projects having a lot of code activity, heavy CI/CD testing, frequent and large release binaries. Sometimes, it feels like the amount of supported platforms exceeds the amount of actual users. To us, it seems ridiculous to see projects with a single developer and virtually no users consuming as much or even more resources than some of the largest community projects on Codeberg, which operate frugal with CI/CD and storage resources. We do not believe it is reasonable for Codeberg to invest our precious donation money into hosting of large ghost projects" Ultimately, democracy is a respectable form of government and the group is free to change their mind later.
rtpg 3mo ago
> To completely ban vibe coded projects just limits the number of users that will use them. here lies the fundamental misunderstanding by many people in this thread. Is the objective of Codeberg to host as many projects as possible on its own server? I do not believe so! The question then becomes "what is Codeberg's objectives?" It's not to become the world's largest code forge instance! It's to build a set of FOSS tools for FOSS software development. Look at [0], for example, which lists alternatives. But perhaps most importantly, the FOSS tooling can be self hosted, right? There's still a notion of freedom there. [0] https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/#what-is-codeberg-e.v.%3F https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/#...
throw49404040 3mo ago
Silly is how it is handled and communicated. I want clear rules, not a rant that electricity is expensive! I have bunch of projects and sites there for a year+, most of them are llm generated. What is a grace period for existing projects to move? What are criteria for deciding what is "vibe coded"? If i get banned, is the repo just deleted, or made readonly... Codeberg had outage for last 5 days, where some repos could not be commited into. I expected post mortem analysis, not this debate!
- inigyou 3mo ago
  > what is a grace period Immediate. They can be deleted tomorrow. > What are criteria Common sense > Is the repo just deleted Probably. What would be the point of archiving (what they perceive as) garbage?
joepie91_ 3mo ago
Given that they're a non-profit membership association with explicitly political goals where every new user represents a direct cost to the organization, and not a startup on a comfortable cushion of VC moneybags looking to pump the numbers for a quick acquisition, I very much doubt that a "growth strategy" is what they're going for here.

echelon 3mo ago

They obviously care more about social performance than code. They just tanked my interest in ever checking them out.

simonw 3mo ago

I'm not crazy about this: > We acknowledge that many developers have started to embrace LLMs as a tool in their workflows. Some use it extensively and rarely code by hand, others delegate only specific tasks to it. We understand that you want to know how the change affects your projects going forward. While we can't give an easy answer, we'll share some remarks that should address most of the concerns raised in the discussion. Where terms and conditions are concerned I really do value "easy answers".

matheusmoreira 3mo ago
They have no idea what "slop" is. They don't want to have to define it with any precision. Ironically, these rules will be enforced based on vibes.
- what 3mo ago
  They will just put it to user vote, same way all their policy is decided. > The second vote was more controversial, but was also accepted with 358 agreements vs 144 disagreements (and 14 abstentions), with a high voter turn-out of around 50% of active members.
  - hparadiz 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - DANmode 3mo ago
      High School keeps being funded, though.
    - squigz 3mo ago
      What do you propose is a better way of deciding things?
      - hparadiz 3mo ago
        Sometimes the right move is to do nothing.

kajman 3mo ago

> So while the following use cases are discouraged (similar to private repositories), they are likely to be tolerated in practice: > Side projects and experiments with little resource usage > Specific tools and custom scripts that would be unlikely to find a community anyway, even if they were not LLM-generated I really don't want to join a commons where something I make might be "tolerated in practice" based on a given moderator's vibe. Which I suppose is the message I was meant to receive from the issue that passed the vote.

imtringued 3mo ago
"Side projects with little resource usage" Wow so they banned literally everything?
- inigyou 3mo ago
  It's an opinionated charity host for free software. Are you actually making free software or just dumping your junk that is technically free but no one uses? If the latter, they're telling you to go away.
  - imtringued 3mo ago
    They reserved the right to ban anything based on exceedingly vague policies. Whether something is someone's side project or not is independent of the amount of users or the presence of a community. They can now ban any project with a single maintainer that exceeds an arbitrary resource limit. Basically they're putting a gun to your head demanding you to always be popular enough to curry their favour. When you think about how most projects start unpopular by definition, the only way to host on Codeberg is first by becoming popular on another platform and then moving to Codeberg, but if that is true why bother migrating? The moment your project's popularity fades or you lose maintainers, the project will get axed by Codeberg. So basically the lesson you're getting here is to not trust the altruistic stranger. His motivations are less sincere than the ones of the self interested stranger.
    - 3mo ago

whateveracct 3mo ago

wow so codeberg is goated?

Cider9986 3mo ago
[flagged]
- whateveracct 3mo ago
  i'm not an idiot. i can just a git repo in a variety of ways. it's just a bunch of text.

not_your_vase 3mo ago

Oh, shoot. Though I don't have many vibecoded projects, when I decided to move to Codeberg from Github the first project I pushed to codeberg was a vibecoded one I guess there is a bright side too: it forces me to selfhost my repos, something I planned to do since years.

timmmmmmay 3mo ago

this is fun! I'm excited to see what they'll ban two weeks from now