3 ms·

https://codeberg.org/ https://codeberg.org/ also fits the description of "Git hosting that never leaves Europe".

imrehg 29d ago
Regardless of that, these don't seen to play for the same audience. Codeberg Terms of Use[^0] makes it clear that it's only for "projects covered by a licence for free and open source software, free and open source hardware, or free cultural works", and "You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools". They also only provide private repos where the FOSS system need it for their infra or what not, and not just for any purpose. These are totally fine for Codeberg to do, and it's wonderful for FOSS!! However it is not a viable place for many projects that are on GitHub/GitLab now and would want to migrate, say: any commercial project, that would need "permission-free" private repos, or when the teams want to decided themselves how much generative AI their developers should use, not their Git-hosting provider... So yeah, different ballpark. [0]: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse.md https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse...
- VCFundedGenYer 29d ago
  Not a problem if you don't ask a robot to write code for you.
  - bsoqk 29d ago
    They also don’t allow code about cryptocurrencies. They are strongly ideology-focused and it’s a matter of time they ban something you want to upload.
    - ragall 29d ago
      That's entirely fine.
      - mrldkgkskld 29d ago
        Legally it’s fine to discriminate against some things, yes. Morally, that’s not very clear, it might actually not be entirely fine.
        ragall 28d ago
        It actually, clearly, is.
      - sneak 29d ago
        No, the general concept of arbitrary censorship by web hosts isn’t fine at all.
        ragall 28d ago
        This isn't arbitrary and isn't censorship, you moron.
        sneak 27d ago
        How is it not? A platform deciding on a whim what sort of content can get your hosted site banned? That’s the definition of arbitrary and the definition of censorship. It’s not government censorship, but it’s censorship nonetheless.
        ragall 27d ago
        It's not "on a whim", it's clearly and publicly documented. That's not censorship.
        deleted 21d ago
        [deleted]
- hexfish 28d ago
  pushin's home page does mention that they 'block slop'. I wonder who decides what slop is, and how?
  - jeremyjh 28d ago
    They mean AI spam PRs.
qznc 29d ago
Codeberg seems to focus on OSS whereas pushin seems to focus on enterprise/commercial uses?
- pjullrich 29d ago
  That’s right. There are plenty of good options for OSS but few to none focused on both, public and private especially with team/enterprise support. That’s why I created Pushin :) simply to have a place to store both my public and private repos but still retain a community which you dont get on a self-hosted solution

Regardless of that, these don't seen to play for the same audience. Codeberg Terms of Use[^0] makes it clear that it's only for "projects covered by a licence for free and open source software, free and open source hardware, or free cultural works", and "You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools". They also only provide private repos where the FOSS system need it for their infra or what not, and not just for any purpose. These are totally fine for Codeberg to do, and it's wonderful for FOSS!! However it is not a viable place for many projects that are on GitHub/GitLab now and would want to migrate, say: any commercial project, that would need "permission-free" private repos, or when the teams want to decided themselves how much generative AI their developers should use, not their Git-hosting provider... So yeah, different ballpark. [0]: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse.md https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse...

VCFundedGenYer 29d ago
Not a problem if you don't ask a robot to write code for you.
- bsoqk 29d ago
  They also don’t allow code about cryptocurrencies. They are strongly ideology-focused and it’s a matter of time they ban something you want to upload.
  - ragall 29d ago
    That's entirely fine.
    - mrldkgkskld 29d ago
      Legally it’s fine to discriminate against some things, yes. Morally, that’s not very clear, it might actually not be entirely fine.
      - ragall 28d ago
        It actually, clearly, is.
    - sneak 29d ago
      No, the general concept of arbitrary censorship by web hosts isn’t fine at all.
      - ragall 28d ago
        This isn't arbitrary and isn't censorship, you moron.
        sneak 27d ago
        How is it not? A platform deciding on a whim what sort of content can get your hosted site banned? That’s the definition of arbitrary and the definition of censorship. It’s not government censorship, but it’s censorship nonetheless.
        ragall 27d ago
        It's not "on a whim", it's clearly and publicly documented. That's not censorship.
        deleted 21d ago
        [deleted]
hexfish 28d ago
pushin's home page does mention that they 'block slop'. I wonder who decides what slop is, and how?
- jeremyjh 28d ago
  They mean AI spam PRs.

qznc 29d ago

Codeberg seems to focus on OSS whereas pushin seems to focus on enterprise/commercial uses?

pjullrich 29d ago
That’s right. There are plenty of good options for OSS but few to none focused on both, public and private especially with team/enterprise support. That’s why I created Pushin :) simply to have a place to store both my public and private repos but still retain a community which you dont get on a self-hosted solution