454
Codeberg bans vibe coded projects (blog.codeberg.org)
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by to c/technology@lemmy.world
135 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1279028/codeberg-bans-vibe-coded-projects

Relevant .

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 66 points 3 months ago (21 children)

A repo host that can remove your repo at any moment because someone can accuse your code of being “vibe coded” is not a repo host I’d trust. It shouldn’t matter how good, bad, or A.I. written your code is. It’s a hosting platform.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I mean, I agree with you, but there’s still room for abuse.

    Have you seen OpenClaw’s issues page?

    Vibe coders and AI agents are floating it with garbage, if they were to do that to Codeberg, it’ll probably run out of resources pretty quickly

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago* (9 children)

    The main argument is due to copyright issues of LLM generated code. Github will happily remove repos which violated copyright laws or IP laws. It makes sense that Codeberg doesn’t want to host code which may be violating copyright law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    Then why not say it's not allowed to upload code you don't have copyright to? This would make sense, nobody would question it and it would generally also cover AI-generated code.

    Mentioning vibe coding just upgraded it into a social and moral topic, while the sole fact that AI generated code is no issue at all, just that there is not a general concensus in the world who holds the copyright to that code.

    It's kinda like blanked banning cooking, because you can't cook without a knife, and knife can be used as a weapon.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    It's more like banning cooking anything with mushrooms in it, because we haven't sorted out which mushrooms are poisonous or not. You could make it more accurate by instead banning cooking with anything poisonous, but of course then lots of people will keep cooking with their mushrooms, naively thinking they are not poisonous and therefore allowed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    It's just a different analogy but the point is the same, why not ban poisonous ingredients? It implies poisonous mushrooms also, but doesn't criminalize cooking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago

    Just one problem with that: Every piece of work - code or otherwise, made by a human or not - may violate copyright law. There really is no way to know without actually checking against all other works (which you can't because you don't have access to all of them).

    What GitHub does is what a sane person would do: React to claims. They just assume that what they get uploaded isn't violating copyright until someone claims otherwise. And as it is literally impossible to actually know, that is the only sane way to approach this problem apart from just not hosting other people's stuff at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    I have the same feeling with SourceHut which bans projects related to crypto money. I think bitcoins is a stupid idea, but knowing that the owner of the site can ban you because of the stupid idea of the day is a very wrong idea.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    IMO everyone should have a local backup of everything they can get related to the repo. Like I know with git itself, anytime you clone the repo you get everything, but also the supporting stuff that is in the layer outside of git. IMO the host should mainly be the hub where everyone gets and interacts with the project, while everything else is already good to go in a new location, should the host either screw up in good faith, get corrupted by outside influences, or gets overrun by local or remote powers.

    This makes me a bit curious about whether the overall risk to projects is higher from individual local device failure or politics around who controls remote hosting services and the nature of the project.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Actual question. Can you revert git to a prior state without the remote repo?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Yeah, as the other commenter mentioned, git is a distributed source control system, so all clones have the full history (though you can bump up the "starting point" to reduce the overhead of storing all previous commits).

    Hosts like github can add more features on top of that, which would have to be backed up separately, but you can automate the repository itself using a single command, which is the same command used to make a clone in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent