[CodesInChaos]

I'd avoid using overly opinionated code hosters that capriciously change their ToS to ban content that was allowed before without a very good reason. I'd like my code to survive long after I stop maintaining it, and such changes reduce my trust that a hoster will achieve that.

(This specific change wouldn't affect me, since all the code I published was written without AI)

[lucideer]

I think this is a case where it's a net positive to have both. If Codeberg's opinionated mission isn't aligned with your personal approach to code, you definitely shouldn't host there, but it's genuinely hugely valuable that it exists for those who do share their vision. Both approaches can coexist & it seems net positive to have that diversity of services available.

In terms of the risk of data loss -notwithstanding that having any codehost as your sole storage location without backups seems unwise for anything you value - Codeberg's approach to handling ToS violations has to date been extremely personal & not overly automated, so it's reasonably safe to assume artifacts won't be deleted without appropriate notice.

[moritzruth]

Technically, depending on how "share" is to be interpreted, this addition does not retroactively make existing projects infringing.

[inigyou]

It doesn't matter whether you technically infringe or not, that's irrelevant. It matters whether Codeberg bans your account.