Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • It is a bad rule. Their community and their choice but I hope we get some fresh options in the open source universe.
    by infecto
  • Codeberg going down the path of Blueskyification
    by ItsABytecode
  • At the start bluesky was actually pretty nice, but now it's just this weird bubble where disagreements don't exist and when I checked out like a month ago there was just so much damn p***.
    by himata4113
  • I genuinely have no idea what you mean or what talking point this might be referring to.

    Bluesky, from my daily use, seems like it’s thriving and full of varied and interesting people.

    by archagon
  • A notable surprise with Bluesky over the past few months is that the anti-AI sentiment has decreased slightly as it becomes harder to argue against impactful use cases.
    by minimaxir
  • Related:

    Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386

    Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015588

    Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635

    I regret migrating to Codeberg

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49021856

    by ChrisArchitect
  • Codeberg should host code, and should not be bothered by which tool the code is written. Let's wait until GitHub starts accepting only code written in VS Code or Visual Studio because those are Microsofts tools.

    Want to use other tools? Move somewhere else.

    by chapz
  • Related:

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635 Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs (blog.codeberg.org) 1 day ago, 144 comments

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386 Codeberg bans vibe coded projects (codeberg.org/codeberg) 2 days ago, 279 comments

    by neogodless
  • Thanks! Macroexpanded:

    Ah, the Codeberg Drama - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49034928 - July 2026 (51 comments)

    I regret migrating to Codeberg - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49021856 - July 2026 (474 comments)

    Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635 - July 2026 (144 comments)

    Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015588 - July 2026 (638 comments)

    Codeberg: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003465 - July 2026 (77 comments)

    Codeberg bans vibe coded projects - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386 - July 2026 (279 comments)

    by dang
  • I don't understand why people are referring to Codeberg as competitors, or going to competition. They're WANTING you to go back => GitHub and consume the GitHub's resource's if you do not conform to their traditionalist nonprofit view.

    They are not trying to retain you as a customer or even have customers ! They do not advertise ...! I am a [relatively responsible] utilisateur of AI and I truly do not understand the entitlement of some people.

    It is a nonprofit, the vast majority of people complaining are not voters, donators, or members, while the vast majority of nonprofit members have chosen this view.

    by kay_o
  • It's the same thing as the "jqwik" issue.

    My personal opinion, is that the people clutching pearls are _scared_. There is a nagging feeling that deep down, they know the machine gods they love so dearly are _wrong_.

    That if actions like these pick up momentum, if their "experiments" work, and more and more people start realizing that alternatives exist, the current places will end up as mostly "dead malls" as the people have moved on to the new places. And they will be facing at a gate where the people guarding it know where they came from, and why they are now asking for entry.

    by ares623
  • It's a bait and switch and not a reliable git hosting provider.
    by 062570864389
  • I think introducing unpredictable new prohibitions is a much bigger problem than the specific bans on cryptocurrency or AI written code. Especially when it leads to existing code becoming unavailable and doesn't just ban new contributions violating the rules.
    by CodesInChaos
  • They weren't exactly unpredictable. People didn't predict it because they're used to dealing with faceless machine platforms instead of human platforms. GitHub bans projects rarely, and when it does, it's without any warning or rule change.
    by inigyou
  • I don’t even mind forges taking a stance on AI. That’s fine. But I agree with Armin Ronacher here: banning projects that “mostly consist of code written by generative AI tools” is like the infamous Supreme Court “I know it when I see it” line. Yes of course I know a project mostly written by generative AI when I see it.
    by kccqzy
  • Exactly.

    > The line is open to interpretation precisely where it needs to be enforceable.

    It is way too arbitrary and open to interpretation and biases.

    by Hendrikto
  • I have no particular problem with this decision/policy on the part of Codeberg.

    I do have an issue with their "tainted code" project that labels various FLOSS projects as "AI tainted".

    ardour.org has the follow AI policy statement:

    ---------

    Using LLMs to generate code for Ardour

    A word about licensing, copyright and LLMs ("AI"). We require all code contributed to Ardour to be licensed under the GPL (you may retain copyright, but the code must use the GPL). Currently, following Thaler vs. Perlmutter in March 2025, no LLM-generated code may be copyrighted in the USA. The GPL relies on copyright, and cannot function if copyright is not held. Consequently, if you use an LLM (Claude, Codex, CoPilot etc. etc) to create code, it cannot be included in Ardour.

    If you want to use LLMs to explore and understand some of Ardour's source code, feel free. But we cannot accept PRs or patches or contributions that are not licensed under the GPL, and if you choose to be honest about it, this means that no LLM-generated code can be accepted by us.

    ---------

    Yet this codeberg-adjacent project considers this project to be AI-tainted. If you're going to do something, do it right or don't do it at all.

    by PaulDavisThe1st
  • They didn't consult a lawyer when they wrote that. The idea that public domain code that is not copyrightable is incompatible with the GPL is simply not true. sqlite is in the public domain and not copyrightable, for example.

    Their decision leans too heavily on what that court decision said. It was actually fairly nuanced.

    The court explicitly declined to address whether Thaler could be considered the author because he created the AI, because Thaler originally listed the machine as the sole author in his registration application.

    It is clear that works generated entirely by AI without meaningful human contribution are not eligible for copyright protection, though it does not resolve questions regarding AI-assisted works where human input is significant, which is a predominant use case with AI-assisted coding.

    Finally, it appears they're unfamiliar with copyright rules around non-copyrightable works that are combined with other creative copyrightable works. The result is almost universally copyrightable. I'm hedging because I haven't thought through the cases exhaustively, but I can't think of a single case where the resulting work would not be copyrightable.

    by rpdillon
  • Its a choice they're totally allowed to make, I just wish we'd get an updated mission statement[1]:

    "The mission of Codeberg e.V. is to build and maintain a free collaboration platform for creating, archiving, and preserving code and to document its development process."

    Amended to include at the end ", as long as you use the tools we find agreeable."

    [1]: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/

    by jjouett
  • This is the problem with choosing platform for moral — instead of practical — reasons.

    Platforms that are known for making moral judgments will likely keep making moral judgments in the future. Eventually, they'll make a judgment that you heavily disagree with.

    This is why communities founded on ideology tend to shatter, while those founded on a shared goal tend to survive. Linus doesn't care whether you're a GPU expert at AMD, a 16-year-old in Nairobi, or a nazi with a swastika tattooed on your arm. He cares about the quality of your kernel patches.

    by miki123211
  • Is the fact that churches are some of the longest surviving communities accounted for?

    (and of course Linus cares, like any unaccountable asshole he can be triggered by a way more trivial thing than a swastika (see the side comment for an example)

    by eviks
  • Deciding that you "won't make moral judgments" is also a moral judgment. It's just a less obvious one. All platforms have made moral judgments in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Some of them just don't realize it.
    by BrenBarn
  • Perfectly summarised. Also recently saw so many people moving from GitHub to Codeberg because of anti-US and sovereign European tech movement and I wonder now which platform they are going to move again
    by sajithdilshan
  • You are saying this like pursuing profit above anything else is not a moral judgment one can heavily disagree with.
    by illiac786
  • He does have some choice words for you if you're Russian, though:

    > As to sending me a revert patch — please use whatever mush you call brains. I'm Finnish. Did you think I'd be ‘supporting’ Russian aggression?

    (from https://therecord.media/linus-torvalds-russian-linux-kernel-...)

    I think this shows that there is a blurry line between moral and practical judgment, and that the type of judgment might not even matter in the way you think. Sure, this episode may have been started by OFAC sanctioning various Russian companies, but Linus is happy to invoke more personal moral terms; and ultimately whether it's practical or moral doesn't matter, a bunch of Russian folks found themselves without a commit bit seemingly at random and the same could happen to anyone regardless of a particular platform's or company's judgment.

    by striking
  • I think this move by Codeberg is lowkey genius. They're trying to build a community based on a set of shared values. Those who disagree with those values are now self-selecting out of the Codeberg community, which is exactly the point of passing these kinds of resolutions.

    The fact that the rule is open for interpretation means that they can effectively shut down malicious actors (i.e those who intentionally misrepresent the degree of AI assistance in writing their code) before they become a problem. It becomes an exercise in judgement instead of a potentially exploitable/loophole-able set of hard and fast rules.

    There's no issue with this. This isn't the supreme court. Your income is not on the line. It's a code hosting repository. Go to GitHub if it bothers you.

    Only time will tell if this set of values holds up. Personally, I think they will, and that the rules will end up being less strict than people are making them out to be, and that relatively few projects will be removed from the platform.

    by free_bip
  • I think we should point out that Codeberg is a e.V. and that they have a Mission Statement [1]

    > The mission of Codeberg e.V. is to build and maintain a free collaboration platform for creating, archiving, and preserving code and to document its development process.

    [1] https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/#...

    As I understand it, they do not ban Crypto. Crypto is just an example for a category of projects that harm there reputation. The formulation for AI generated code is different. It does not point out AI / LLMs as example for copyright issues. It does it the other way around.

    by exiguus
  • Seems like a recipe for endless division and meta arguments rather than doing anything useful.

    Reminds me of internal political disagreements.

    by duxup
  • these things always end with community disintegration. Eventually, some high profile user will cross the undefined line or leaders change and want to rewrite the rule then half the community will side with them and half will not.
    by chasd00
  • The goal is to reduce the amount of use of the platform, and I think imposing this rule is an excellent way to do that. Not sure I'd call it genius, though. There's a fair likelihood of unintended consequences.
    by rpdillon