this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2026
324 points (98.5% liked)

Selfhosted

60951 readers
581 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
324
Codeberg bans vibe coded projects (news.ycombinator.com)
submitted 3 days ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Epp@lemmus.org -5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

"Suspicious commit pattern" sounds like a pretty flimsy basis for banning a human from the platform. If nothing else, this futile crusade will be entertaining for almost everyone; except for their support staff who will need to investigate and either defend or repeal the ban each time there's a false-positive, and a person is accused of wrong-think because yesterday they commit twice in an hour whereas they usually only commit once per hour.

[โ€“] poVoq@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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 ๐Ÿคท

[โ€“] Epp@lemmus.org -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] poVoq@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's not prejudice if it is objectively true ๐Ÿคท

[โ€“] Epp@lemmus.org -3 points 3 days ago

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" ๐Ÿคท