• JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago
    1. You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by “generative AI”-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).

    That feels like a reasonable middle ground. Allow some things with some AI written code, but don’t allow stuff that is a majority of AI code.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        I can’t see the future, but this all doesn’t sound like an ideological “vibe code is bad, we don’t allow it” but a “the copyright of vibe coded content is unclear across jurisdictions, we don’t allow it.” So I don’t think it’s something they’ll say “hey, this looks vibe coded, deleted.” Many projects self proclaim they’re vibe coded. Many projects list every commit that is vibe coded. It seems likely they’ll go after those projects instead.

        But yes, I’m not an oracle, and Codeberg could always heel turn and turn this into a witch hunt, but I don’t think they’ve earned that reputation.

        • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          It does sound like “vibe code bad”.

          Because if they were actually concerned about copyright, they would ban all LLM code, not just some LLM code.

          There is no need for a repository hosting software to decide what people are allowed to upload unless it is literal Nazi or kiddy diddle content or something else illegal.

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Did you not read the actual change?

            1. You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by “generative AI”-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).
    • Kaligalis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      Let’s be real here: Most future projects will be mostly written by AI.
      Sure, the good ones will have proper human QA. But Claude Code is so much faster at writing and rewriting surprisingly good code, that ignoring it is just like ignoring IDEs was a decade ago.
      You can still write code without AI, syntax highlighting, code-suggestions, documentation tooltips, inspections, and fully integrated version control. But all these tools legitimately make software development easier.

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        People still ignore IDEs. In fact, in certain circles, it is seen as a badge of honor to use Vim or Emacs instead of some modern solution.

      • Polyphilic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Regardless of that, it still fails to address the very legitimate copyright concerns.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Let’s be real here, the concerns about what the copyright is of code that’s produced by AI is still sort of in the air, especially for a site that wants to host content from across the globe. Codeberg picking its battles and not wanting to deal with that for now seems reasonable.

        • cloudskater@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Let’s be real here, the ethical concerns over LLM use far outweigh any copyright concerns and are the real reason people should refrain from using them in any way, shape, or form.

            • cloudskater@piefed.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              21 hours ago

              Was that a comeback? I think we’re agreeing with each other here. It does matter if stuff is stolen, which all LLM generated stuff is. I was referring more to the environmental impacts and all, because I’m sick of ppl talking about copyright as if that’s what makes LLMs suck. Even if it was legal under copyright law, it’d still be awful on all fronts.