Could you share a link to the vote? Is it public?

I applied to become a member last week but I don't have a response yet.

@bart the results are shared publicly here: codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pull…

And the member application processing typically comes a bit to a halt during the assembly/voting period, so hopefully should get moving soon!

Proposal Assembly 2026: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions

Here is the proposed addition for the ToU that @Gusted and I agreed on post-assembly for the upcoming membership vote. 🙏 The discussion for this proposal is available for Codeberg e. V. members in the forum: https://forum.codeberg.

^Codeberg.org

Interesting. I would have probably voted against that.

It's really ambigious what "mostly" means. Lines of code?

What if a project contains 99% 'realcoded' code, but now starts adopting LLMs for development. Would that be allowed since it is not mostly generated by LLMs? Would that project be kicked off Codeberg at some point?

@bart As for all content moderation anywhere (including here on Mastodon) you can't have a 100% clear definition. It would make breaking the spirit of a rule trivial and make the moderation work impossible.

Instead you need to find a place where you trust the moderators - and in case of Codeberg its members who have the ultimate power over that by electing their representation to enforce those rules.

I disagree. If the rules are not clear then Codeberg cannot be used as a serious code forge.

A source code repository is not content in the same way a comment on a forum is. It is more significant. Businesses, even lives, may depend on it.

By keeping the rule vague it is an effective ban on all open source communities that have an even somewhat liberal stance on LLM usage. Because those communities are one moderator interpretation of "mostly" away from being deleted.

@bart As I see you're giving a GH link in your account:

If you have a look over their ToS you'll see that it's equally up for interpretation what 'acceptable use' is, including not allowing content that is 'off-topic' without any definition. docs.github.com/en/site-policy…

And with GH you can't even influence who will be responsible for interpreting those rules. Would you say GH isn't a 'serious code forge'?

GitHub Acceptable Use Policies - GitHub Docs

Get started, troubleshoot, and make the most of GitHub. Documentation for new users, developers, administrators, and all of GitHub's products.

^{GitHub Docs}

GitHub has major flaws. That's why our community (MapLibre) was looking into Codeberg. But it looks like the one project we ported so far is in violation, so I guess the experiment will be short lived.

I consider myself to be more aligned with open source aficionados than big evil megacorporations. But thinking of it, I actually trust Microsoft more to not decide the project I maintain is not welcome anymore overnight.

I might change my mind if I manage to succesfully advocate reverting this decision as a member. 🙂

In my opinion, Codeberg should compete with GitHub and become the default choice for good faith open source projects and communities. Right now, I believe a purist stance on LLM usage makes this goal inobtainable.