What is a vibe coded project? Where does it start? Cursor autocomplete? One shot Github project copies?

[Edit] The pull link is https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253/files and says

"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)."

Whatever "mostly" means. If you autocomplete a lot, and the code written is "mostly" written by AI by autocomplete - it seems you fall under this.

I wonder what the ratio needs to be. And I wonder if auto-refactoring in Intellij is also included, because Intellij created the code and then also has "unclear copyright status" if we follow the logic.

Together this opens up more questions to me than it answers.

▲

cwillu 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

“You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex).”

Seems pretty clear to me?

▲

KingOfCoders 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What is mostly? >50%? >75%?

What does "written by generative AI" means? Autocomplete? IDE-with-AI-normal-classname-completion? Everything not typed by a human.

I personally don't find this clear at all and see many unhappy discussions in the future for Codeberg.

▲

inigyou an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It means if the guy running Codeberg doesn't like it. This is his fiefdom, not a public square. Make your own fiefdom for AI coding. You could call it Vibeberg.

▲

oneeyedpigeon 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it's reasonable to assume >50% by default, unless the source clarifies what they mean by "mostly".

▲

cassianoleal 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>50% of words? Characters? LoC? Files?

	▲	oneeyedpigeon 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, this is the bit where it really falls down, regardless of how you define "mostly"!

▲

KingOfCoders 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To me majority != mostly.

	▲	oneeyedpigeon 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree that they have different connotations. However, in the absence of other information, I don't see how we could ever collectively agree on a better value. The least subjective option, as far as I'm concerned, is "more than 50%". If a is 50.001 and b is 49.999, then a is the one with the most, not b.

▲

Orygin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's reasonable not to assume what they meant. They have a clear stance on the subject instead of letting us guess

▲

lelanthran an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I personally don't find this clear at all and see many unhappy discussions in the future for Codeberg.

You don't understand their goal in doing this?

Frequently (much more than we'd like to admit) actual contracts leave loopholes in, said loopholes which go against the spirit of the contract. It is not unusual to have a concrete contract that allows more (or less) than the spirit the contract was signed in.

Rather than nitpicking the contract (the TOU), why do you think they need this updated contract in the first place?

▲

derdi 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> What is mostly? >50%? >75%?

1. Don't ask us, ask the Codeberg people in the thread above.

2. If you're not sure you can meet Codeberg's terms of service, do what others are claiming to do: Take your repositories elsewhere.

3. I'll just hypothesize that you don't have Codeberg repositories and are only arguing here for argument's sake.

	▲	lelanthran 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		So much this! Here's what I cannot understand - the spirit behind this update is clear: to carve out a space for human-written projects. Now we have a bunch of people nit-picking what "human-written" means, with a bunch of snide "Hah! Gotcha!" thrown in for good measure... "What about if it autocompletes - that's not written by a human!!! Lusers!!!" "Hey, I used LLMs to rubberduck this; that's not fully written by a human even though I typed it!!!" "Hey, I used a _KEYBOARD_ to type it in; that's the computer and keyboard firmware that /akshually/ wrote the code!!!" Face it, if you need to know how close to the line you can go without going over it, then Codeberg is probably not for you anyway - there's no need to nitpick the wording. If you, in your own words, "write your own code", you don't really care where the line is because you're so far from it anyway. There is no scenario where you'd want to nitpick the wording...

▲

jorisw 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If 'mostly' means over 50% you could call this clear.

Otherwise I don't think this is clear at all.

Otherwise, what is mostly?

Mostly at the outset, or at any given time? Must the project move out when it goes from 49% to 51% AI-assisted code?

	▲	KingOfCoders 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"Mostly at any given time?" Yes, old project with 1M LOC of pre-AI code + 100% AI 100k LOC generated coded for the last three months, is that mostly?

▲

rdsubhas 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Noone can discuss in good faith if the argument is: "If generated in bulk by vibe code" >> "what if I generate word by word with autocomplete".

This is IMHO the reason why we can't have sanity, because there are people ready to hack it.

	▲	inigyou an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That's why terms and laws are written vaguely. If you're obviously on one side of the line then you're obviously on one side of the line. If you're straddling the line, your punishment depends upon how the judge feels that day. So it would be wise not to risk it.
	▲	tempfile 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I don't think this is a bad-faith response. Someone might fully retain copyright while using heavy autocomplete. I don't think such a person would be banned by the codeberg policy. This is at least a little bit unintuitive.

▲

noosphr 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you have to ask then the answer is no.

▲

akmarinov 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean Codeberg will pretty soon start having to ask. How do they determine that and who'll be in charge to find violations there?

	▲	inigyou an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It isn't a public service. It is one person offering his resources to help FOSS. He decides if you align with his mission.

▲

childintime 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They could have tagged these projects with "AI" or "MixedAI", and they'd be removed from the default views. It should also make clear that such projects may have a dubious legal status. Though within businesses no one cares?

	▲	inigyou 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They are also opinionated about what they host. FOSS only. Now updated to: unvibecoded FOSS.

▲

Mashimo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools

I guess if you auto complete line by line and actually read the code it should be gucci.

Edit: Oh, you found it as well now. Disregard my post.

	▲	KingOfCoders 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"I guess if you auto complete line by line and actually read the code it should be gucci." Not from their wording.

▲

tempfile 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If this opens more questions than it answers, then you are simply discovering that you don't understand copyright (which is ok, but not the fault of the Codeberg policy).

> You must not share projects that mostly consist [of LLM-generated code]

> Such projects having an unclear copyright status

There is no bright-line threshold at which a code contribution becomes copyrightable (and therefore relevant). It is a legal question determined by courts. However, nobody in practice has any difficulty determining whether their code is copyrightable.

Codeberg is essentially asking/demanding that "your code" coincides with "code you hold the copyright for". This responsibility can be delegated to other humans, but not to LLMs.

	▲	graemep 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That is not what their wording says. They could have said "code that is mostly covered by copyright under German law", but they chose to say 'mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools'. Also, if you are a non-German user of Codeberg and there is a wide difference between what is covered by copyright in your country and Germany (e.g. if you are British) this might make Codeberg less of a suitable choice for you. What copyright laws matter to a particular user? Their country, the US because of its dominance and reach, or some sort of global safe/effective compromise? This has the feel of being done by people who do not understand how to work things to be clear legally, nor of an understanding of the consequences.