Selfhosted

From what I understand from their blogpost, it was mostly about conserving their own resources, because a lot of the vibecoded projects they got were uploading insane amounts of binary releases and wasting resources on CI/CD while having no users or other collaborators.

They wanna reserve more server space for projects, that actually productively use it, like bigger FOSS projects with actual users and contributors.

That is perfectly understandable for me, even without taking my huge distaste for AI into consideration. Anyone that thinks, that this small, community funded project is obligated to host their huge slop repos semms pretty entitled to me.

Frankly, I don't see where the whole big deal of this story is.

People who don't like codeberg can just go somewhere else (even back to github) and/or found/support an alternative that better suits their needs.

It's not like the world needs to have one git hosting service to rule them all, it's not like there must be free ones (entitled much?), and it's not like whatever service happens to be the new "cool" one must be neutral as to what they host.

BTW, although to my knowledge their policy is not enforced super-strictly, codeberg has never been neutral in this regard — see 1 and 2

Why are we posting this random tech bloggers whiny complaint again?

I said it before: Codeberg uses Forgejo which is FOSS. If you don't like Codeberg's decision: stop complaining, self-host Forgejo and lose nothing.

But fwiw, Fuck AI coding, not only for its unmaintainability but also for stealing of intellectual property.

Honesty, I respect Codeberg for making a decision. No matter what they choose there would be pushback

I'll just note that they can make whatever decision they want, its their platform, and considering its just forgejo underneath - you can always take it and host your own.

Also, I think it coincidentally lines up quite nicely with what we have here for posting an AI project now. Anything at that Generated stage is going to count as "mostly".

I find it disappointing that people are upset with codeberg over this.

I fail to see why people are getting worked up. While yes the tos says the ambiguous "mostly" the rest of the paragraph gives you a clear indication why. Copyright. Which I the same reason many other platforms don't level allow vibe code into their codebases.

CB does not want to host code a large number of repos that in the future could be classified as stolen code, and now as the code host will have to do the work of deleting it all when they get sued for hosting it. And you know right holders are just waiting to do that.

I'll offer a comparison not yet mentioned in the context of hosting software, but which should sound familiar in the social media context: moderation is hard at scale.

By every metric of scale, Codeberg is a competitor to the behemoth that is GitHub. And that means they have to contend with tough choices, such as who and what to host on their servers, no different than BlueSky, Facebook, and the individual instances of the Fediverse. And to be clear, Codeberg has always been limited to FOSS projects anyway, so nobody can genuinely argue that limits weren't in the cards.

The distinction is that less alike Meta, and more alike with the Fediverse, Codeberg takes no hostages: people with obvious AI repos (or even marginal repos, given the possible ambiguity) are free to take their code and leave. Yes, they have to rebuild their CI pipelines, but that's always required for any platform, including self hosting.

The fact is that Codeberg is a centralized entity that needs to (try to) make consistent policy. In this case, they have a concern about copyright and nothing anyone says can magically dematerialize that risk. If their new policy is not agreeable, then decentralized self hosting is probably the only way forward. But that was always an option with ForgeJo and federation.

And indeed, folks moving from GitHub or elsewhere are not exactly without fair warning that they might have to migrate again; we've not reached a utopia yet.

I think the "regret" post misses an entire point, that Codeberg doesn't want to be the place where AI stuff is hosted. Maybe it wasn't clear in their communications but it always seemed to me the copyright and resource stuff was more of a justification of something they wanted to do anyways.

Also everyone suggesting AI should just be treated as a tool comfortably ignores the externalized costs. Maybe there's some "yeah it sucks but we can't to anything and it so we just use it" and that's it. I'm so tired of lengthy AI-is-just-a-tool justifications that are omitting the central point.

The article seems correct with the "Codeberg's reputation" clause though. That one smells bad, not sure why they felt the need to add it.

I don’t want to depend on a platform that rewrites its terms of service on a whim, without properly announcing that the change was even under consideration, and without giving its users a way to weigh in.

[...]

I wish it had linked to a discussion thread, or at the very least a poll, so that I could have voiced the concern I have

Then you should've joined Codeberg e.V. which gives you access to both a forum and a voting platform.

Lots of people who have never used Codeberg and don't understand the difference between Codeberg and Forgejo are very angry about this.

While I fully agree and support Codeberg stance on vibecoded projects I'm not sure I follow their reasoning here. For instance they complain about webcrawlers scraping their site to train their LLM models but I don't see why getting rid of the vibecoded repositories wouldn't make them more palatable for scrapers. A site full of human made code is infinitely more useful to those companies than a slop infested honeypot.

I like it. We need more specialization of services and less centralization. If Codeberg is the "human-made FOSS forge" then that means something when you see a project on it. If that's not your project, fine, there is plenty of competition (and Forgejo is open source just run it yourself).

Would be cool to see someone make a "vibehub" and then you know when you see a link to a project on there what you're getting (depending on your opinion, good or bad)

I still don't see the problem with Codeberg's decision. Of course they will kick projects that they don't want, just like github will kick projects they don't want. The issue isn't what is and isn't allowed, it's who allows it, as it always has been.

Of course selfhosting is one way to control it, but in Codeberg there is a process to be part of that governance, which the author didn't partake in. At which point there is nothing more to discuss, get in the governance first and then you can write a blog post about how the governance is bad, isn't aligned with you or whatever.

It's 2026. Who still expects things to be perfect with a third-party without participating ? Be part of the governance, selfhosted or not, always

if you don’t self host it, the cloud is just someone else computer

I pretty much said this in the other thread. Unless you own the platform, or a significant investor in said platform, you are subject to the whims of the platform, good, bad, or indifferent. Some don't like that I guess because they feel like they supported the platform, may have contributed to the platform, but at the end of the day, the platform dictates law for the platform.

Kind of like lemmy.selfhosted. There are rules. If you don't bother yourself with reading the rules before posting, you get what you get.

That I regret link isn't working for me.

The decisions did go through Codeberg’s own Assembly 2026, which is more process than most platforms bother with, and yet as an ordinary user I found out about it the way probably most people else did, through a dark blue banner at the top of the site on the day it was already settled.

I did not even get to know about this that way. Only now, a month later from some backyard forum.

This is such a pointless discussion. If you want to use AI a lot, just go to GitHub. If you don't, go to Codeberg. What's the problem?