Codeberg seems to ban vibecoded Projects; reason might be german copyright law
>It looks like Codeberg want only copyrighted material in their service, so it is reliable in the future that e.g. licenses must be followed (e.g. GPL), and copyright doesn’t suddenly get declared as being of the model owner, and it isn’t a copy of something else.
That is a cautious reasonable position - in early days of LLM coding (3 years ago!) indemnity from model companies was a major issue globally because of the lack of clarity of the law around this. The US specifically has settled on it being (effectively?) public domain. But I don’t think that is fully settled, and it certainly isn’t settled in international copyright law.
The goal of the vague “mostly” in the Codeberg change is to ensure there is enough human input to the code they host, to be reasonably sure under German copyright law it is copyright of the person sharing it.
edit: link to poll that caused it (might be down due to high traffic) https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19820434
edit 1: i dont defend/oppose this move, i just find it interesting
Most LLM users don’t try to hide it and the commit pattern is a result of the LLM assisted workflow, thus without losing the perceived benefits of using LLMs it can not be easily hidden. And the pattern isn’t only about when but also what. You might be oblivious to it, but the pattern is very clear and not possible to mistake with regular code writing patterns in an overall project. It is harder to spot in individual smaller PRs though, but that isn’t what Codeberg’s new policy is targeting.
And anyways, this isn’t a question of “wrong-think”, but simply of Codeberg not wanting to be associated with such low quality, likely copyright violating and resource hogging projects. The LLM using people have plenty of other code forges to use, so it is really a non-issue 🤷
They haven’t had a reason to hide it before now. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone now “vibe coded” a suite of obfuscation tools specifically to avoid detection.
Yes, that’s why I said it’s a matter of prejudice. Assuming the projects are low quality, copyright violating and resource hogging are all conclusions reached by prejudice. You’re right there are other options available; my comment is just an observation.
It’s not prejudice if it is objectively true 🤷
Yeah, and Lemmy users are unemployed basement dwellers.
What’s that, not all of them? Oh, but some of them, so I can claim it’s “objectively true” 🤷