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
People can upload code that violates copyright too. No llm required.
So if that is the concern have a rule about not violating copyright (which they may already have). And there is likely already a process for handling that.
This is the problem I have with the situation: the solution chosen (banning llm code) doesn’t really address the concerns they’ve raised directly. It’s just apologetics to make it sound like it’s reason-based rather than “we don’t like it”.
It’s their platform, they can do what they want, but let’s not pretend it’s not code-puritanism.
Yes, they can upload copyrighted stuff, but people typically don’t do so on large scale and when they knowingly do it these days they typically try to hide their tracks well enough that law firms know it will not be a lucrative business to try and blackmail them.
And one of Codeberg’s main points is the unknown copyright status, you just failed to understand it.
Yeah - it’s well known that scripts to automate doing bad things did not exist before llms.
People have tried using forges to host explicitly illegal material all the time. Not just “this may be a copyright issue perhaps maybe”.
The copyright complaint is a fig leaf to hide their shame.
They also outright banned cryptocurrency code with no “copyright fig leaf” apologia.
It’s code puritanism plain and simple. “We don’t like these things so we’re banning them.”
You are still not understanding the issue.
LLMs cause a lot of people to unknowingly violate copyright, and those people then become easy targets for malicious copyright litigation. And Codeberg is caught in the middle of that and doesn’t want to be involved in the resulting mass legal cases because they are just a small volunteer organisation without a legal team.
And Codeberg’s explanation is very clear that is isn’t a blanket ban on LLM generated code for “purity” reasons. It is a risk mitigation strategy against projects that are mostly LLM generated.
This hasn’t happened. It’s a fantasy.
Maybe you don’t understand copyright?
What hasn’t happened? Sure, this isn’t wide spread yet, but it also took malicious law firms a while before they realized going after p2p torrent users is a lucrative business.
And I seem to have a much better grasp at copyright than you do.
P2P torrent users are nothing like a code hosting platform. 🤣
As has been said - their liability for llm code is no different from hosting any other code. They already have the same risk. And that is typically that they must respond to take-down notices which they are already doing.
They are already dealing with all of the problems they would be dealing with with llm code.
It’s just code puritanism wrapped in pseudo legal justification. Own it.
At this point I must assume you are trolling 🤦
It is a totally different thing to have the occasional copyright take down request from a legitimate copyright holder, or hosting code that is in the majority likely copyright infringing and just waiting for someone to start targeting for mass copyright litigation.
This is wild unfounded speculation.