Hahahahaaaa hell yeah
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
432 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
86548 readers
3878 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
7. 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.
How on earth will they determine that though?
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.
load more comments
(9 replies)
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.
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.
Regardless of that, it still fails to address the very legitimate copyright concerns.
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.
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.
Yeah like whether it's stolen or not. Whether it's a copyright violation. Oh wait.
Seeing how codeberg is FOSS only, I'm not suprised. Vibe-coded projects is a HUGE legal trap considering licensing. And seeing how it's based in Germany (notorious about siding with license owner against regular individuals) it only makes sense
How can I prove that I have ownership over code I wrote myself, and that it isn't copyrighted somewhere in the world? How can anyone prove that code is written by a human or AI (if you don't commit obvious AI harness files and folders)?
Developers also "generate" code and are also "trained" on code they written as freelancers or employees for others which is potentially copyrighted. In that aspect just because it's written by hand, doesn't imply the writer has copyright on it.
What? The point I was trying to make is that AI generated content is going to be treated as CC licensed. It is difficult to incorporate under other FOSS projects. Mostly considering that it doesn't exactly distinguish between code, library, binary and patents. It's simplier to avoid it altogether if your primary mission is FOSS
Considering your comment about verification of authorship, it's likely to be treated the same as it is now. You are the author, unless proven otherwise. And you are right. Even if you are the author and wrote every single code yourself, you can infringe on someones paten
How can I prove that I have ownership over code I wrote myself, and that it isn’t copyrighted somewhere in the world?
As long as you had no access to that code and have some proof of that then that should be quite easy. I.e. you never worked for a company that claims copyright on something you wrote.
Developers also “generate” code and are also “trained” on code they written as freelancers or employees for others which is potentially copyrighted.
Then you need to do a proper clean-room rewrite with people who had provably no access to the original code.
Well, if I use AI, it's still considered I wrote the code, just with help. And I personally never saw the code nor had access to it. Also, whatever I implemented must be clean room implementation then. If it was that simple, then we would not have the copyright issue to begin with. LLM can't be an author nor can it be legally liable.
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.
This right here
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
Just use that cat girl captcha thing, every other FOSS site uses, and the problem is solved.
How bad cou...
HOLY SHIT
load more comments
(17 replies)
Like anyone who's offended by this isn't already slopping for Microsoft's GitHub.
I get it, but determining and moreso verifying code is mostly generated is so intractable that this will likely not do anything practically. Well, perhaps it will discourage some disclosure.
The idea is probably to have an easy joker reason to randomly ban any repo which is for some otherwise hard to justify reason not wanted on the site. It's a common corpo practice to have extra vague and impossible-to-disprove rules like that.
I don't think anyone expects to catch every vibe coded project that might end up on the site. It's seems to be about nurturing specific direction for their community, giving admins clear rules on this issue and making their decisions easier in case they do find (or get a report about) a clearly AI "led" project.
Even if vibe coder manages to stick around, they can't be sure their projects won't disappear at random due to the new rules. Might be enough to prevent some of them from using the site.
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(19 replies)
view more: next ›