They are ideologically motivated towards open source software.

That means that they are ideologically motivated about the open source license being enforceable.

Just because you have ulterior motives, it doesn't mean others do. Codeberg is pretty clear on their stance.

> Inclusion of harmful code is no more likely than human-extruded code (probably less actually).

Right now this is unclear, based on personal experience. I am totally fine with using AI tools, but I do review every line of code it spits out.

It's fair to take a safe approach and favor human oversight.

▲

olalonde 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think they have ulterior motives because I do, I think that because of the loaded language they use (e.g. "taking a stand against AI", "LLM-extrusions") and the dubious reasons they came up with.

It's been decided pretty much everywhere that LLM output is not copyrighted by the LLM vendor. The only realistic risk here is for vibecoded code to be considered public domain, if too little human input was involved, but public domain is functionally equivalent to a very permissive open source license (e.g. MIT minus attribution).

	▲	surgical_fire 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The only realistic risk here is for vibecoded code to be considered public domain, if too little human input was involved, but public domain is functionally equivalent to a very permissive open source license (e.g. MIT minus attribution). I don't think that's settled. For the time being it's fair to be on the safe side. Either way, if it irks you that they chose this stance, you can just not use Codeberg. They are not the only game in town.