7 ms·

> In addition, Codeberg conflates “having a community” with “being legitimate software worth hosting” I don't think this is a fair summary. I don't see this co

> In addition, Codeberg conflates “having a community” with “being legitimate software worth hosting” I don't think this is a fair summary. I don't see this conflation in Codeberg's blog post. The words in quotation marks don't actually exist in Codeberg's blog post. It seems that what they are saying is: In a free hosting platform where we share all the resources, it's not fair that some people using LLMs are using up disproportionately huge hosting resources to handle the unnaturally large amounts of resources they can churn out with these tools. I'm a solo dev, and I couldn't find the judgement against solo developers or any slight against people who don't have a team. The concern is that some people don't gobble up an unfair amount of resources. I personally have been moving to self-hosted Foregejo for ultimate freedom. But I also think it's fair for some providers have the freedom to take a bit more of a harsh (or based - depending on your perspective) stance against LLM generated code. I mean, a lot of people have been bemoaning the fact that the human-generated material has been increasingly hard to find in a sea of AI-generated material. It could be nice to have a corner of curated, human-made code still available on the web.

venussnatch 3mo ago
Define resources and create a better limit then. 10 small code-only projects will take orders of magnitude less storage, bandwidth and cpu than one project with committed image and sound assets.
- zyx321 3mo ago
  The resource limit are quite clear: From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.
- customguy 3mo ago
  And as long as it's hand-made, that's fine.
  - skinfaxi 3mo ago
    What is hand made code? Does that mean no auto complete? No linters?
    - rpdillon 3mo ago
      People downvote this kind of take because you're striking at the heart of the enforcement problem and also the definition of what a project that is majority built with AI really means. What they really want is to ascertain the amount of effort from a human that went into the project and they're using the percentage of code generated by an AI as a proxy metric. But it's a bad proxy, both because it doesn't capture human effort and because it is not measurable.
      - skinfaxi 3mo ago
        Even human effort is a terrible proxy because effort is a gradient that depends on skill. An expert exerts low effort for the same result a novice would labor over.
        rpdillon 3mo ago
        That's a good point. I think the core metric is somehow quality, but that's notoriously difficult to measure.
        skinfaxi 3mo ago
        I recall having this same exact discussion with my philosophy professor years ago. We all know there is something different about a hand cooked meal and say putting a tablet in a box and a fully cooked meal comes out for you. I feel like it may be closer to attention? That's the thing we actually value, that someone took the time and put in the effort to do something. And the quality depends on how much we value that attention. Like high effort low quality is praised when it's the work product of your child for instance.
        inigyou 3mo ago
        Maybe it shouldn't be viewed as some kind of reward but merely as a spam reduction measure. If you put in effort, it isn't spam.
- kalleboo 3mo ago
  It's a community code forge. If someone poured their heart and soul into making an awesome game with kick-ass image and sound assets, the community probably wants to support it. Their stance is obvious: if you just want dumb git hosting with a freemium model, use something else.
eviks 3mo ago
> people using LLMs are using up disproportionately huge hosting resources So block huge resource use? What if people use LLMs with disproportionately tiny resource use?
- SiempreViernes 3mo ago
  The main problem is that so many LLM users are selfish bastards and they won't respect the spirit of such rules and will only stop when the hard disk quotas force them to. So now your solution entails lowering the quota for everybody because allowing in LLyou must assume eve
  - eviks 3mo ago
    How does adding a few words to TOS stop "selfish bastards"?
    - soapdog 3mo ago
      Gives them a line to justify removing projects in the future if they are caught violating the ToS.
      - rpdillon 3mo ago
        Do we have a tool that can detect whether a project is majority LLM-written? This is an unenforceable rule, unless it's just coming down to vibes and they're going to decide what projects to ban based on their feelings.
        skydhash 3mo ago
        > It is an unenforceable rule Are you sure? It's pretty easy to find telltale signs of LLM usage, like the CLAUDE.md file, the '.cursor' directory, the 'vim'-sized codebase done in a week.
        3mo ago
bsder 3mo ago
Yeah, I really wish all the people whining about Codeberg would give us all pointers to free alternatives that don't have these restrictions. And, if those alternatives don't exist, well, you now understand why Codeberg is taking the position they are.
- FabCH 3mo ago
  https://github.com https://github.com
  - sigilsack 3mo ago
    [dead]
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      Maybe that's the inevitable fate of free hosting platforms that allow use by LLMs.
boramalper 3mo ago
> It seems that what they are saying is: In a free hosting platform where we share all the resources, it's not fair that some people using LLMs are using up disproportionately huge hosting resources to handle the unnaturally large amounts of resources they can churn out with these tools. Then instead of addressing the excessive resource usage problem indirectly via banning AI-assisted apps, they could've addressed it directly by imposing limits/quotas. It's abundantly clear (and not that they are hiding it either) that their issue is with AI itself so anything else is just a secondary concern if not even a smokescreen. --- > I'm a solo dev, and I couldn't find the judgement against solo developers or any slight against people who don't have a team. Quoting their blogpost [0]: > ## The development team of none > Using LLMs to work with your code gives you a kick of adrenaline. You can develop at a rapid pace, build things as if you had a large team. Only that you have none. In fact, you are (often) alone, working with a statistical machine that turns energy into code. I couldn't care less about what they think about solo developers, but it's just one bad excuse after another and that's what people are criticising. Open Source is one person. [1] --- [0] https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-... [1] https://opensourcesecurity.io/2025/08-oss-one-person/ https://opensourcesecurity.io/2025/08-oss-one-person/
- otabdeveloper4 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - doc_ick 3mo ago
    In the ai-article op did say they’d do exactly that. Though it is surprising they left GitHub due to ““enshittification” of the platform under Microsoft’s ownership”, when it’s likely GitHub is using similar ai practices the op is and matches their exact ai usage. Citing the op themselves: “ an alarming number of self-described AI experts whose expertise appeared to consist entirely of having a ChatGPT or Claude subscription and the willingness to write about it in seventeen-paragraph posts.”
- lardosaurusrex 3mo ago
  [flagged]
whateverboat 3mo ago
I think you are wrong. A better way is to have a free tier and charge for usage.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Codeberg is a registered non-profit charity whose purpose is to provide free services for free software projects. You can make a different site that works the way you want it to.
baranul 3mo ago
Agree. Providers who don't want to deal with LLM generated code should be respected as part of the free market. Let the market decide which direction is for the better or at least allow for niches that cater to certain audiences.
- Hendrikto 3mo ago
  That is fine unless you claim to be a neutral and free as in freedom service provider. You are clearly not at that point.
- rpdillon 3mo ago
  It's wild to me that nobody is considering enforcement. Part of the reason this is a bad rule is because there's no way to actually validate what is an LLM coded project. And the AI train is not nearly at its destination. Things are going to change dramatically over the next four years. My prediction? This is not going to age well.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    It'll be the same as literally every other ToS ever: if they detect a problem and trace it to you, and you're blatantly violating the terms, they kick you off. If they detect a problem and trace it to you, and you're subtly violating the terms, they lock out whatever is causing the problem and get in contact with you.
    - rpdillon 3mo ago
      You're trying to sidestep how enforceable something is, and instead implicitly admit that enforcement will be inconsistent. That's my issue. Not all ToS are this way, and they're better for it.
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        Perfect enforcement is called tyranny. Anything that matters isn't enforced perfectly.
zyx321 3mo ago
A more relevant quote is "to enable equal opportunities regarding the access to knowledge and education." from their mission statement. As a gemeinnütziger Verein (charitable association) their charta is legally binding.
- pelasaco 3mo ago
  All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others...
  - zyx321 3mo ago
    The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the spicy autocomplete.
    - pelasaco 3mo ago
      well one can argue that many more people will write code with AI assistance than without it.. here i see the opposite: The wish of few outweigh the need of many.
      - zyx321 3mo ago
        Can one argue with a straight face that people will learn to code better by using a predominantly AI-based workflow? Or even learn by reading vibecode uploaded by someone else? Hell, I'd argue that Vibecode without the prompt that generated it isn't even real open source.
        pelasaco 3mo ago
        Can you argue that you could learn to code better, copying and paste code from stack overflow? Who wants to learn, learns.. we did without Internet, and I still learn with AI.. btw, is in the "Satzung" from Codeberg e.V something about "learn to code?
        3mo ago
Hendrikto 3mo ago
If you can’t keep up with the load, say that. Limit new signups and/or implement rate limiting, and ideally scale up if you can. DO NOT try to spin that into taking some form of moral high ground. DO NOT make yourself the arbiter of what is and is not considered a worthwhile project. That is not neutral. That is not free.
- adamddev1 3mo ago
  They're not obligated to deal with the higher load brought on by people's LLM coded projects, CI pipelines etc. In order to keep things freed up and flexible for others, I think it's fair for them to say, "in this community, we're going to save the space for more hand-coded projects." It's not fair for everyone to have to eat the costs of AI (like communities getting bulldozed for data centers) and just accept that it has to be used.
  - Hendrikto 3mo ago
    Of course nobody is obligated and I never claimed that. In fact, I fucking hate the LLM hypetrain. But this decision is decidedly non-neutral and non-free.
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      What would a neutral free SaaS look like to you?
      - Hendrikto 3mo ago
        Simple: Provide the same freedoms to everybody. Do not get involved unless absolutely required to by law. That entails not restricting access for specific projects, and not revoking freedoms for any reason. Everybody should get the same treatment. For example, in the case of being overloaded by AI contributions, a neutral solution would be to implement the same rate-limiting for every project. Set a sensible limit, and enforce it universally. Do not discriminate specific projects.
oooyay 3mo ago
Resources were never part of the original discussion. It was about values. This is the author of the ToU addition the day it landed: https://mastodon.social/@gedankenstuecke@scholar.social/116963424034199442 https://mastodon.social/@gedankenstuecke@scholar.social/1169... He also has a lot of posts since: https://mastodon.social/@gedankenstuecke@scholar.social https://mastodon.social/@gedankenstuecke@scholar.social
rpdillon 3mo ago
Yeah, the natural solution here is to only offer some amount of hosting for free and then charge for larger amounts of code to host. Those quotas are something that is empirical and observable and can be managed. But instead, they're implementing a rule that is unenforceable because you can't actually validate whether or not the majority of the project was written by an LLM. They just chose a suboptimal path and pissed a bunch of people off in the process, and their terms of service makes this out like some kind of copyright or security issue. It's just silly.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Terms of use are a statement of intent, not an if-else ladder to be executed by a computer.

venussnatch 3mo ago

Define resources and create a better limit then. 10 small code-only projects will take orders of magnitude less storage, bandwidth and cpu than one project with committed image and sound assets.

zyx321 3mo ago
The resource limit are quite clear: From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.
customguy 3mo ago
And as long as it's hand-made, that's fine.
- skinfaxi 3mo ago
  What is hand made code? Does that mean no auto complete? No linters?
  - rpdillon 3mo ago
    People downvote this kind of take because you're striking at the heart of the enforcement problem and also the definition of what a project that is majority built with AI really means. What they really want is to ascertain the amount of effort from a human that went into the project and they're using the percentage of code generated by an AI as a proxy metric. But it's a bad proxy, both because it doesn't capture human effort and because it is not measurable.
    - skinfaxi 3mo ago
      Even human effort is a terrible proxy because effort is a gradient that depends on skill. An expert exerts low effort for the same result a novice would labor over.
      - rpdillon 3mo ago
        That's a good point. I think the core metric is somehow quality, but that's notoriously difficult to measure.
        skinfaxi 3mo ago
        I recall having this same exact discussion with my philosophy professor years ago. We all know there is something different about a hand cooked meal and say putting a tablet in a box and a fully cooked meal comes out for you. I feel like it may be closer to attention? That's the thing we actually value, that someone took the time and put in the effort to do something. And the quality depends on how much we value that attention. Like high effort low quality is praised when it's the work product of your child for instance.
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        Maybe it shouldn't be viewed as some kind of reward but merely as a spam reduction measure. If you put in effort, it isn't spam.
kalleboo 3mo ago
It's a community code forge. If someone poured their heart and soul into making an awesome game with kick-ass image and sound assets, the community probably wants to support it. Their stance is obvious: if you just want dumb git hosting with a freemium model, use something else.

eviks 3mo ago

> people using LLMs are using up disproportionately huge hosting resources So block huge resource use? What if people use LLMs with disproportionately tiny resource use?

SiempreViernes 3mo ago
The main problem is that so many LLM users are selfish bastards and they won't respect the spirit of such rules and will only stop when the hard disk quotas force them to. So now your solution entails lowering the quota for everybody because allowing in LLyou must assume eve
- eviks 3mo ago
  How does adding a few words to TOS stop "selfish bastards"?
  - soapdog 3mo ago
    Gives them a line to justify removing projects in the future if they are caught violating the ToS.
    - rpdillon 3mo ago
      Do we have a tool that can detect whether a project is majority LLM-written? This is an unenforceable rule, unless it's just coming down to vibes and they're going to decide what projects to ban based on their feelings.
      - skydhash 3mo ago
        > It is an unenforceable rule Are you sure? It's pretty easy to find telltale signs of LLM usage, like the CLAUDE.md file, the '.cursor' directory, the 'vim'-sized codebase done in a week.
        3mo ago

bsder 3mo ago

Yeah, I really wish all the people whining about Codeberg would give us all pointers to free alternatives that don't have these restrictions. And, if those alternatives don't exist, well, you now understand why Codeberg is taking the position they are.

FabCH 3mo ago
https://github.com https://github.com
- sigilsack 3mo ago
  [dead]
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    Maybe that's the inevitable fate of free hosting platforms that allow use by LLMs.

boramalper 3mo ago

> It seems that what they are saying is: In a free hosting platform where we share all the resources, it's not fair that some people using LLMs are using up disproportionately huge hosting resources to handle the unnaturally large amounts of resources they can churn out with these tools. Then instead of addressing the excessive resource usage problem indirectly via banning AI-assisted apps, they could've addressed it directly by imposing limits/quotas. It's abundantly clear (and not that they are hiding it either) that their issue is with AI itself so anything else is just a secondary concern if not even a smokescreen. --- > I'm a solo dev, and I couldn't find the judgement against solo developers or any slight against people who don't have a team. Quoting their blogpost [0]: > ## The development team of none > Using LLMs to work with your code gives you a kick of adrenaline. You can develop at a rapid pace, build things as if you had a large team. Only that you have none. In fact, you are (often) alone, working with a statistical machine that turns energy into code. I couldn't care less about what they think about solo developers, but it's just one bad excuse after another and that's what people are criticising. Open Source is one person. [1] --- [0] https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-... [1] https://opensourcesecurity.io/2025/08-oss-one-person/ https://opensourcesecurity.io/2025/08-oss-one-person/

otabdeveloper4 3mo ago
[flagged]
- doc_ick 3mo ago
  In the ai-article op did say they’d do exactly that. Though it is surprising they left GitHub due to ““enshittification” of the platform under Microsoft’s ownership”, when it’s likely GitHub is using similar ai practices the op is and matches their exact ai usage. Citing the op themselves: “ an alarming number of self-described AI experts whose expertise appeared to consist entirely of having a ChatGPT or Claude subscription and the willingness to write about it in seventeen-paragraph posts.”
lardosaurusrex 3mo ago
[flagged]

whateverboat 3mo ago

I think you are wrong. A better way is to have a free tier and charge for usage.

inigyou 3mo ago
Codeberg is a registered non-profit charity whose purpose is to provide free services for free software projects. You can make a different site that works the way you want it to.

baranul 3mo ago

Agree. Providers who don't want to deal with LLM generated code should be respected as part of the free market. Let the market decide which direction is for the better or at least allow for niches that cater to certain audiences.

Hendrikto 3mo ago
That is fine unless you claim to be a neutral and free as in freedom service provider. You are clearly not at that point.
rpdillon 3mo ago
It's wild to me that nobody is considering enforcement. Part of the reason this is a bad rule is because there's no way to actually validate what is an LLM coded project. And the AI train is not nearly at its destination. Things are going to change dramatically over the next four years. My prediction? This is not going to age well.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  It'll be the same as literally every other ToS ever: if they detect a problem and trace it to you, and you're blatantly violating the terms, they kick you off. If they detect a problem and trace it to you, and you're subtly violating the terms, they lock out whatever is causing the problem and get in contact with you.
  - rpdillon 3mo ago
    You're trying to sidestep how enforceable something is, and instead implicitly admit that enforcement will be inconsistent. That's my issue. Not all ToS are this way, and they're better for it.
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      Perfect enforcement is called tyranny. Anything that matters isn't enforced perfectly.

zyx321 3mo ago

A more relevant quote is "to enable equal opportunities regarding the access to knowledge and education." from their mission statement. As a gemeinnütziger Verein (charitable association) their charta is legally binding.

pelasaco 3mo ago
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others...
- zyx321 3mo ago
  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the spicy autocomplete.
  - pelasaco 3mo ago
    well one can argue that many more people will write code with AI assistance than without it.. here i see the opposite: The wish of few outweigh the need of many.
    - zyx321 3mo ago
      Can one argue with a straight face that people will learn to code better by using a predominantly AI-based workflow? Or even learn by reading vibecode uploaded by someone else? Hell, I'd argue that Vibecode without the prompt that generated it isn't even real open source.
      - pelasaco 3mo ago
        Can you argue that you could learn to code better, copying and paste code from stack overflow? Who wants to learn, learns.. we did without Internet, and I still learn with AI.. btw, is in the "Satzung" from Codeberg e.V something about "learn to code?
        3mo ago

Hendrikto 3mo ago

If you can’t keep up with the load, say that. Limit new signups and/or implement rate limiting, and ideally scale up if you can. DO NOT try to spin that into taking some form of moral high ground. DO NOT make yourself the arbiter of what is and is not considered a worthwhile project. That is not neutral. That is not free.

adamddev1 3mo ago
They're not obligated to deal with the higher load brought on by people's LLM coded projects, CI pipelines etc. In order to keep things freed up and flexible for others, I think it's fair for them to say, "in this community, we're going to save the space for more hand-coded projects." It's not fair for everyone to have to eat the costs of AI (like communities getting bulldozed for data centers) and just accept that it has to be used.
- Hendrikto 3mo ago
  Of course nobody is obligated and I never claimed that. In fact, I fucking hate the LLM hypetrain. But this decision is decidedly non-neutral and non-free.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    What would a neutral free SaaS look like to you?
    - Hendrikto 3mo ago
      Simple: Provide the same freedoms to everybody. Do not get involved unless absolutely required to by law. That entails not restricting access for specific projects, and not revoking freedoms for any reason. Everybody should get the same treatment. For example, in the case of being overloaded by AI contributions, a neutral solution would be to implement the same rate-limiting for every project. Set a sensible limit, and enforce it universally. Do not discriminate specific projects.

oooyay 3mo ago

Resources were never part of the original discussion. It was about values. This is the author of the ToU addition the day it landed: https://mastodon.social/@gedankenstuecke@scholar.social/116963424034199442 https://mastodon.social/@gedankenstuecke@scholar.social/1169... He also has a lot of posts since: https://mastodon.social/@gedankenstuecke@scholar.social https://mastodon.social/@gedankenstuecke@scholar.social

rpdillon 3mo ago

Yeah, the natural solution here is to only offer some amount of hosting for free and then charge for larger amounts of code to host. Those quotas are something that is empirical and observable and can be managed. But instead, they're implementing a rule that is unenforceable because you can't actually validate whether or not the majority of the project was written by an LLM. They just chose a suboptimal path and pissed a bunch of people off in the process, and their terms of service makes this out like some kind of copyright or security issue. It's just silly.

inigyou 3mo ago
Terms of use are a statement of intent, not an if-else ladder to be executed by a computer.