[jalev]

So who are you actually angry at? There was a vote, by people, in a democratic process, and Codeberg are adhering to it. Why is it Codeberg's problem that they don't defy the will of their members? Are you angry at them because the members put a motion against your particular special interests? If so, go make a new motion to reinstate them.

[microtonal]

It is of course in the right of voting members to do this. However, it undermines Codeberg as a stable repo hosting platform. If you are hosting a repo there for an open source project, it may suddenly be in violation after a whim of the voting members.

The signal is now that Codeberg is an activist platform. That is fine, but that makes it unfit for many projects that want a largely neutral hoster.

Just as they are free to do this, I am free to move my repositories elsewhere and stop donating.

(And I'm nothing near a vibe oder, but the way the terms are now formulated, even doing LLM-assisted programming could be a violation.)

[jackb4040]

> Just as they are free to do this, I am free to move

It doesn't seem like you're amicably moving your projects away. It seems like you're going around tech forums arguing with the democratic decision and fear-mongering about how legitimate projects will be removed next.

[microtonal]

It doesn't seem like you're amicably moving your projects away.

I am moving my projects away because I will be in violation of the new rule:

You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools

While my projects are currently not 'mostly code generated by "generative AI"-tools', most new code for some of my projects is, so at some point in the not-too-far future I will cross the threshold where this becomes true.

around tech forums arguing with the democratic decision

Don't be so dramatic. What tech forums am I going around aside from a comment here? Also, I acknowledged that this is a democratic decision. That does not mean that I have to agree with it and if I don't agree with it, I can move my repositories somewhere else. I am just flagging that this can be a problem for existing open source projects.

fear-mongering about how legitimate projects will be removed next.

My projects are legitimate and have been used for years by many people and some will be in violation of this rule once enough LLM-assisted code has been added.

[logifail]

> It seems like you're going around tech forums arguing with the democratic decision and fear-mongering about how legitimate projects will be removed next.

If we're going to argue that a platform is free to make decisions, aren't its [ex-]users also free to make decisions, too?

[Defletter]

Yes obviously, and they've already said that. What they're pointing out is that people are being petulant whiners about it. If we can all agree that Codeberg is free to make its decisions, and a decision has been made that you don't like, then just choose another provider. Going around slandering Codeberg is being a petulant whiner.

[microtonal]

I think one of the issues is that people who already have repositories there have to migrate them, migrate the issues, existing pull requests, community, etc. For larger projects this can be quite a large time sink.

I think it would have been more palatable to people if the terms said something like "Additionally, for repositories after July 24, the following additional requirements apply:".

[Levitz]

>fear-mongering about how legitimate projects will be removed next.

Fear-mongering?

What were legitimate projects are getting removed already. This is not fear-mongering, it's just not being incredibly shortsighted.

[jdiff]

Where will this slope slide next? It doesn't seem all that slippery to me. First they came for the LLMs, Lord knows plenty of people are speaking up, but who will they come for next in the dead of night after a majority of voting members publicly decide to boot them?

[Levitz]

You've got perfectly reasonable and predictable scenarios if you read the post.

CoC drama is already a much too known vector of problems, this adds fuel to possible fires.

[jdiff]

All are quite large leaps.

[Levitz]

Well, for starters, banning content that is already present on the platform is a very aggressive measure. You are, in practice, kicking people out, and it's perfectly reasonable for those people to be upset at either Codeberg or its community.

For seconds, this proves that Codeberg may in the future ban any project. The platform is, flat out, without a doubt, not reliable long term, and I reckon about anyone should be pretty upset at that.

Third, this reeks of children playing politics. If you are going to put measures as strong as these on the table, you better have very defined lines on which to act upon, and you better have a good rationale for them. This doesn't seem to be the case in one account or the other, which paints the administration as not only incompetent, but delusional on their competency. This may not warrant anger, but it sure does warrant frustration and disappointment.

It is perfectly fine to take politics seriously. I reckon more people should do it. There is a huge problem though in which people mix that up with taking political action, without actually putting the work on what to do, why, how and what are the consequences. That is the actually hard part, and this looks more like "we are anti-bad stuff" than that.

[monkaiju]

> For seconds, this proves that Codeberg may in the future ban any project.

Thats the cost of hosting your code on a platform you dont control. Its nothing new either ideologically or practically, large forges have been banning repos for years.

>Third, this reeks of children playing politics.

This is the age old liberal way of whining about political action they dont like, they rarely critique the actual decision but target "how" it was done. You can view it as "childish" if you want, but for those of us that see these tools as inherently bad an outright ban is the correct and decisive move. Folks seem to think that if a political action isnt technocratic enough it is childish, but really its the type of action we need more of. There isnt nuance to these tools in many folks' minds, they are a scourge and should be banned as swiftly as possible.

[dkuntz2]

> this proves that Codeberg may in the future ban any project

as is their right, they're providing this service to you free of charge, if they don't like how you're using their service they are free to remove it.