[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.