[saghm]

Yes, and the baseline amount of trust seems to be substantially reduced for Codeberg for a lot of people in the wake of this change relative to most of the other options. I don't even necessarily think the new policy is bad in a vacuum, but if the strongest argument for why you can trust a service is "well can you really trust anyone 100%?", it's hard not to be a little wary.

Would you use a bank if their response to the question of "How would I know I'll be able to access my money tomorrow?" is "This question exists for any bank" rather than actually giving any sort of reassurances?

[skydhash]

It does exists for any bank. Where I'm at, the assurance is given by the national bank, not the individual banks. Anything else is just probability and marketing.

In Codeberg case, what I would be looking at is the actual banning process, not "assurance" they won't ban me later. It's a Germany-based institution, if Germany applies a whole sanction to my country, I'm gone anyway.

[saghm]

> It does exists for any bank.

No one is disputing the existence of the question.

> In Codeberg case, what I would be looking at is the actual banning process, not "assurance" they won't ban me later.

Okay, so then, what actually is the banning process? The recent changes sound like the banning process has been expanded to cover a lot of new things that it didn't before, and stating "well anyone can ban you" isn't particularly helpful information, which was the point I was making.

[skydhash]

> The recent changes sound like the banning process has been expanded to cover a lot of new things that it didn't before

This is the actual part of the TOS

  Please be aware that this list is neither exhaustive nor complete (illustrating the spirit of the law, not its letter). Be aware that any account can get suspended at any time if it is used for activities harming Codeberg e.V. or its associated platform and services, directly or indirectly, even if these activities are not explicitly listed in the examples above.

So anything goes. The actual list contains stuff that are going to get you expulsed for sure. But there’s nothing that guarantees your ability to host for a certain period of time.

So your best bets is to keep backups of your data soemwhere else. Which you should always be doing.

[saghm]

> So your best bets is to keep backups of your data soemwhere else. Which you should always be doing.

Generally backing up a git repo is easy; it's all of the other stuff that tends to get hosted together with the code (issue tracking, pull requests, releases, potentially even CI) that's a lot worse to have to migrate over. Plus, anywhere a link was published to the repo is going to point to something that no longer exists.

It actually sounds like we're in agreement for the most part about the relative levels of risk here. I misunderstood your earlier reply to me as a rebuttal to what I was saying to the parent commenter, but from re-reading it I'm realizing I might have inferred incorrectly.

[skydhash]

We are. My main point was that it's not worth it to disparage others because of their rule. Unless there's a contract or other legal clause, everyone is free to do whatever with their stuff. It's wholly a matter of trust. And I never trust any online service to be permanent in their behavior. I just enjoy it while it lasts.

> it's all of the other stuff that tends to get hosted together with the code (issue tracking, pull requests, releases, potentially even CI) that's a lot worse to have to migrate over. Plus, anywhere a link was published to the repo is going to point to something that no longer exists.

I think most of them provides API endpoint to access those data or some export tools. And as far as links go, I would prefer to have a webpage for any relevant projects, something like the one for msmtp [0], tied to my own domain.

[0]: https://marlam.de/msmtp/