Ah, the Codeberg Drama

ttomgag about 1 hour ago 14 commentsRead Article on gagliardoni.net

DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

46% Positive

Analyzed from 656 words in the discussion.

Discussion (14 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

jalev•35 minutes ago

So who are you actually angry at? There was a vote, by people, in a democratic process, and Codeberg are adhering to it. Why is it Codeberg's problem that they don't defy the will of their members? Are you angry at them because the members put a motion against your particular special interests? If so, go make a new motion to reinstate them.

microtonal•19 minutes ago

It is of course in the right of voting members to do this. However, it undermines Codeberg as a stable repo hosting platform. If you are hosting a repo there for an open source project, it may suddenly be in violation after a whim of the voting members.

The signal is now that Codeberg is an activist platform. That is fine, but that makes it unfit for many projects that want a largely neutral hoster.

Just as they are free to do this, I am free to move my repositories elsewhere and stop donating.

(And I'm nothing near a vibe oder, but the way the terms are now formulated, even doing LLM-assisted programming could be a violation.)

jackb4040•4 minutes ago

> Just as they are free to do this, I am free to move

It doesn't seem like you're amicably moving your projects away. It seems like you're going around tech forums arguing with the democratic decision and fear-mongering about how legitimate projects will be removed next.

bramhaag•38 minutes ago

You are simply not the target audience of Codeberg. That's okay.

If you are on Arch, you can do this simple fix (instructions are similar for other distros):

  sudo pacman -S forgejo
  sudo systemctl enable --now forgejo

chrisandchris•about 1 hour ago

> I notice that both PRs were filed after the assembly and after the ballots went out

At least in Switzerland, you can not vote (well, you can but it does not have any effect) on things that are not mentioned within the agenda published and sent to members with the invitation. So IMHO these votes will not have any effect itself, just serve as an "indication".

IANAL.

fkdk•35 minutes ago

Time will tell whether Codeberg's approach of Valetudo-like community-building will work out.

cyberjar•33 minutes ago

Whilst I think that criticism of such heavy-handed decision making is valid, I can't help but feel this blog post is littered with unhelpful and snide culture war remarks, and a smug attitude that this is the definitive end of Codeberg. If Codeberg truly has gone woke, people who espouse 'anti-censorship at any cost', like the author, will leave. But many others will remain.

greekrich92•32 minutes ago

Unironic use of "web3": article ignored

masfuerte•15 minutes ago

There was a quicker tell: opening with "Ah".

openmarkand•about 1 hour ago

The best thing I've seen in 2026. Thank you codeberg.

jmclnx•about 1 hour ago

I agree, I went from github to gitlab. I should start looking at codeberg.

pixelesque•39 minutes ago

Only if you host public FOSS projects - it's not a replacement for private repos.

It seems a lot of people on here don't understand that.

bagol•40 minutes ago

Banning LLM or crypto currency related projects is very bad. I think it's better to flag them or mark them, but let them be.

wyldfire•30 minutes ago

I tend to agree but you can't deny that the widespread use of LLMs means that codeberg will expend more resources overall for projects taking advantage of them. And its members have spoken. We might disagree about the conclusion they came to and even how they went about it but their stance is clear now so we might as well just move on.

c048•34 minutes ago

They're not banning code written and maintained bybthe use of LLM's. They're banning projects entirely created by LLM's and heavily or solely maintained by LLM's.

It's basically not allowing junkfood on their platform. Now that code is easier than ever to barf out, so will the amount of junk.

As for tossing out any and all crypto projects... how anyone still associating themselves with that pile of garbage?

classified•19 minutes ago

> Banning LLM or crypto currency related projects is very bad.

No, it's actually very good.

calvinmorrison•39 minutes ago

we should also flag any projects to do with the enshittification of the world. Probably banning all JS, node, bun, loaf or any other related projects would be good.

Since we're talking about my opinions here, which should be construed as laws of my hosting platform, i always hated ruby so lets ban ruby.

In fact codeberg shall only accept Perl programs going forward that are written using emacs

customguy•38 minutes ago

> unbridled hatred for AI and Web3 reeks of neo-Luddism

> distrust in other areas, such as quantum computing

you haven't even begun getting to the point and already lost me

> fear of the unknown

Unknown what, lol?

"we don't like X, Y Z for A, B, C reasons"

"Luddites, fear of quantum computing.. oh no I'm confused, they're so afraid of the future."

That is like someone mumbling at their shoes that someone is afraid of something. No notes.

At any rate: Are you afraid of a control group? Are you afraid of a surface not covered in slop, so it may keep slop knowable? Are you afraid to sink alone?

izacus•about 1 hour ago

Ah, I was waiting for the inevitable AI pusher "you're sticking your head in the sand this is INEVITABLE" argument pushed by OpenAI and others.

Carry on, nothing to see here.