Right - I see the other topic has been locked / author hasn’t returned to follow community rules.
Here’s the original topic https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386
and a measured (IMHO) response to it. (BTW, do your self a favour and change tabs with that site open :)
https://マリウス.com/i-regret-migrating-to-codeberg/
It’s a tough spot, Codeberg has found themselves in and I wish them luck. But beyond that, this is (yet) another reminder that in 2026, if you don’t self host it, the cloud is just someone else computer
I fail to see why people are getting worked up. While yes the tos says the ambiguous “mostly” the rest of the paragraph gives you a clear indication why. Copyright. Which I the same reason many other platforms don’t level allow vibe code into their codebases.
CB does not want to host code a large number of repos that in the future could be classified as stolen code, and now as the code host will have to do the work of deleting it all when they get sued for hosting it. And you know right holders are just waiting to do that.
So made up fears over settled law. Makes perfect sense.
Okay, so I lack the sources, so I ask others to please back me up; but isn’t this anything but settled law? There was something in the US but it was more of a recommendation than a law, and will have to be tested in court. Also, Codeberg is hosted in Germany, so its laws would apply there.
No, well founded reservations based on an ever changing legal landscape that varies from country to country.
It’s more than just the ‘mostly’. In legal proceedings they would really struggle to ‘demonstrate cause’, i.e. what is copyrighted, and what is not - not to mention demonstrating criminal intent.
As I wrote before, these are phase 2 effects of a new emerging technology. All it will take is one company to go after them in court to reverse this.
What do you mean? They are perfectly in their right to enforce this rule, even if they couldn’t prove that their reasoning made sense. They are not obligated to host your slop
I agree they are within their right to do it, I’m saying it legally wouldn’t survive a challenge in court the way they implemented it.
No need for your combative tone or assuming I have slop that needs hosting.
How would it be legally challengeable? No one can be legally forced to host someone else’s data against their will, that sounds ludicrous, otherwise people could sue YouTube for removing their videos before they were legally required to.
The TOS are essentially a way to let you know what they will consider, but legally they can remove your repo without any reason, they’re not legally required to host your data.
Again, you’re right, but the TOS do need to be clear and unambiguous which this is not. This is - like a lot of Lemmy these days- a knee jerk response to a novel technology that’s not fully understood. That’s obvious because of how the rules are worded.
This opens them up to anti discrimination lawsuits - which are take quite serious in German courts. They would have to demonstrate that a user is banned from uploading work because it is “mostly” LLM generated and not because they are trans or black or something.
I know this is unpopular opinion on Lemmy atm, but this genie isn’t going back in the bottle. And it is very difficult to fence against because when used properly as an assisting tool, and not as an oracle of truth or a full self driving vibecoding machine, the code quality is basically indistinguishable from human code.
I’m not saying Codeberg can’t do this, I’m saying they will struggle once there is serious pushback on this and it will hopefully open up the discussions on copyright and their place in modern society. Akin to how guns are still made and used, but the more advanced countries have strict laws around who can purchase them and who can use them and for what purpose.
Alright, I just don’t understand what you mean by “a challenge in court”. In this case, you couldn’t challenge them on these rules, a court could do nothing about them.