Germany copyright law feels like the relevant thing here - Codeberg is a non-profit based in Germany.

Best quick English language overview of status that I could find: https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2026/germany/when-can-a...

It looks like Codeberg want only copyrighted material in their service, so it is reliable in the future that e.g. licenses must be followed (e.g. GPL), and copyright doesn't suddenly get declared as being of the model owner, and it isn't a copy of something else.

That is a cautious reasonable position - in early days of LLM coding (3 years ago!) indemnity from model companies was a major issue globally because of the lack of clarity of the law around this. The US specifically has settled on it being (effectively?) public domain. But I don't think that is fully settled, and it certainly isn't settled in international copyright law.

The goal of the vague "mostly" in the Codeberg change is to ensure there is enough human input to the code they host, to be reasonably sure under German copyright law it is copyright of the person sharing it.

> copyright doesn't suddenly get declared as being of the model owner

That does not seem to be likely. The article you link indicates it is the prompter and provider of any other inputs (in the case discussed the photographer who took the photo the LLM modified) who might have claims.

> The US specifically has settled on it being (effectively?) public domain.

My understanding is that sufficient human input makes it copyright. This is not greatly different from German law.

In both cases something that is vibe coded in the strict sense of having only vague prompts will not be covered by copyright, something with real human input will.

That leads to a problem with "mostly" there. Does it mean mostly vibe coded, or mostly AI written? AI written under close guidance is covered by copyright so should be fine.

This does make it important to keep prompt history and record human edits of generated code as that is what will prove sufficient human input.

Also, its not just German law that matters to users. For many users law in their jurisdiction is what matters.

Given a German court talked about not having the prompt logs making it hard in a specific case to prove it had sufficient human input, maybe someone could do an open source hosting service where the Claude Code logs were fully uploaded with each commit, so that could be later proven? It would be cool anyway to have such a service, so people could learn how to do LLM coding better from the examples.

Once you look at how German anti-nuclear lobbying set Europe back decades on its energy independence and made us dependent on authoritarian hellholes of the world, it all makes sense. They just want to do the same with AI.