3 ms·

The author has 3 problems with codeberg + sourcehut specifically: 1. They are limiting resources - no more unlimited storage, no more free CI runners, adding A

by theamk 26d ago

The author has 3 problems with codeberg + sourcehut specifically: 1. They are limiting resources - no more unlimited storage, no more free CI runners, adding Anubis to protect server load. 2. They have banned cryptocurrencies and blockchains 3. They are banning AI contributions I think 1 is perfectly reasonable for every service. Machines cost money, and that money needs to come from somewhere. When one donates to a platform like this, the intention is to support open-source code hosting. Wasting this money on cryptospam and badly-coded AI scrapers is a very bad idea. For 2, there is a general crypto-apologist logic about how crypto-currency is OK while completely ignoring that most of the crypto-currency projects are just grifts to steal money from people. There are real reputation risks in being associated with that stuff, and I can't really blame anyone for wanting to stay away from it. Point 3, "block AI contribution", is actually the most important one - as author points, even Linux has AI patches, and it would not be acceptable under the new rules. Making a post just about that part could have generated much more interesting discussions, too bad that points 1 and 2 detract from the message. (And yes, every service has some opinions, including Github which blocks active malware (when discovered) and copyright violations. It's just they don't touch author's areas of interest, so author does not care)

eesmith 26d ago
Thing is, "And funnily enough, DeVault himself awkwardly failed to state his own flawed policy. ... One of the most consequential pieces of free software on the planet, and the guy writing the rule can't tell you which side it lands on." is a misinterpretation. That text points to the discussion topic, dated 19 Aug 2026, when the policy was not yet decided and in flux. The final policy is "original content written with or which facilitates the use of LLMs (large language models) or other generative AI technologies", with interpretation at https://sourcehut.org/blog/2026-08-27-tos-changes-and-llms/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2026-08-27-tos-changes-and-llms/ posted 27 Aug 2026. >Drew DeVault: This policy is worded carefully to allow some room for reasonable interpretation. For instance, the choice to target “original” content in the policy is intended to allow you to host mirrors of major codebases that may have more lenient LLM policies, such as the Linux kernel. An individual who contributes to a project like Linux can host their personal tree and stage patches on SourceHut, and a Linux kernel subsystem which has an internal policy on LLM use which aligns with SourceHut is welcome to host their tree, mailing lists, and so on, on our platform, without worrying about the impact of AI-assisted code in the rest of Linux. However, SourceHut would not be suitable as the upstream platform for the broader Linux project as a consequence of their liberal LLM policy.

by theamk 26d ago

eesmith 26d ago

Thing is, "And funnily enough, DeVault himself awkwardly failed to state his own flawed policy. ... One of the most consequential pieces of free software on the planet, and the guy writing the rule can't tell you which side it lands on." is a misinterpretation. That text points to the discussion topic, dated 19 Aug 2026, when the policy was not yet decided and in flux. The final policy is "original content written with or which facilitates the use of LLMs (large language models) or other generative AI technologies", with interpretation at https://sourcehut.org/blog/2026-08-27-tos-changes-and-llms/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2026-08-27-tos-changes-and-llms/ posted 27 Aug 2026. >Drew DeVault: This policy is worded carefully to allow some room for reasonable interpretation. For instance, the choice to target “original” content in the policy is intended to allow you to host mirrors of major codebases that may have more lenient LLM policies, such as the Linux kernel. An individual who contributes to a project like Linux can host their personal tree and stage patches on SourceHut, and a Linux kernel subsystem which has an internal policy on LLM use which aligns with SourceHut is welcome to host their tree, mailing lists, and so on, on our platform, without worrying about the impact of AI-assisted code in the rest of Linux. However, SourceHut would not be suitable as the upstream platform for the broader Linux project as a consequence of their liberal LLM policy.