[1]: https://about.gitea.com/ [2]: https://forgejo.org/

Edit: https://web.archive.org/web/20260723015826/https://codeberg....

Unrelatedly, I can recommend Radicle, which hosts a growing network of crypto projects. https://radicle.dev/

I'm also apparently banned from reading the article, despite having no previous usage of Codeberg or any history with the project, so I can't even see their reasoning.

For example, what would happen if they were to decide to ban Ruby On Rails projects because of DHH's fascist actions? I'm not sure I love the precedent this sets.

https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurre...

https://man.sr.ht/terms.md#permissible-use

Mostly positive HN discussion when this happened: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33403780

Fortunately Codeberg is a relatively small player and Git forge hosting is fairly competitive and among the easiest types of online service to self-host, so the effect of this on most Git-forge-users is pretty minimal.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003465

This is unprofessional and severely harms their credibility. It's not what was done but how they did it, and I don't doubt that subsequent policy changes can and will be implemented in the same manner unless it's addressed.

A much debated aspect of open source is that it may be used for any purpose. The JSON licence sparked much of this debate.

More recently there has been suggestions for an ethical source movement, which advocate that source may only be used for ethical uses. I presume they must mean Good old christian, pro family, anti-terrorism, traditional values etc. the usual ten commandments stuff. Or perhaps they had something else in mind, it's unclear, but what ever it is that's the stuff that's allowed and the other stuff isn't.

[1] https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurre...

> “ Codeberg is a non-profit, community-led effort that provides Git hosting and other services for free and open source projects.”

Github still works, and the crypto ecosystem also has arweave and many others for static assets

The software we write has been increasingly shown that they are not some unassailable paragon of neutrality and mere harmless artifacts. These things are written by people with intent. Naturally the other set of people who run these platforms would have objections on hosting them.

"Invevitability" gets thrown around these days. I guess this is the other kind of inevitability that comes from the environment we've created.

We're just returning back to the foundations of the internet where people setup their own community area and tell you what they will and will not tolerate.

Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386

It makes Codeberg seem like an unserious project.

Also, idgaf what codeberg does, given that HN is virtually the only centralized platforms I use by choice (after all, where else would I watch people moan about decentralized platforms while being captive, and I do mean captive, audiences to centralized, censored platforms), but it's really a choice to merge something like this and then memory-hole the first Context link.

edit: wait, let me get this right, the justification Context was a non-public, forum, with this label?

> WARNING: This is currently not the official place for discussions but rather a testing playground

HN loves to preach democracy until a platform governs itself in a way they disagree with.

> This is not a neutral space, Codeberg is political. If you disagree with someone, be constructive and don't call them merely political and think that's a reason for the discussion to stop.

[1] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2184#issuecom...

Cryptoberg or whatever.

I have zero sympathies around crypto projects, generally. "Blockchain" feels to me like a venus fly trap that swallows distributed systems engineers and turns them into pseudo-libertarian apologists for money-laundering.

But I pulled my project off Codeberg today because of the anti-AI positioning. Not so much because of any specifics in their very vague wording, which they've left completely open to subjective interpretation. But because of the crazy toxic discourse on Mastodon and other places around it. People making analogies between people's LLM use and non-consensual sex, and accusing people seeking clarity on what "mostly AI" means of being like "creepy guys" etc. Just beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse and also being offensively trivializing of actual rape culture concerns without even realizing it.

I really thought I liked the codeberg community when I joined it. I'm a copyleft guy. My project is AGPL. I've been tilted pretty far over to the left my whole adult life. I liked not being on American infrastructure. It turns out I don't like these people though. Bye. I'd rather wade in slop than sanctimonious moralism.

Wording from a Big Politics. Is there a Codeberg Parlament? Just curious.

Honestly, I think this measure actually gives Codeberg a competitive edge in terms of code quality.

I think we're now seeing a pattern where, under a 'free' large market, regulations are being used to create unique market identities. That's my take—it depends on what you regulate, which determines the market's character.

Personally, I've noticed that when Codeberg announced regulations around AI code, most of the comments cheered. But when the same people talk about cryptocurrency regulations, they get angry. It seems like people just want to regulate what they don't like, not what they do.

I won't use Codeberg myself, but I think this policy is reasonable. I've decided that what you regulate defines your market's identity.