I strongly disagree: I think this is a perfectly acceptable action. No project is entitled to host their project there, nor is any project compelled to do so, so I don't see why there is any harm in having this instance of Forgejo moderate itself as it sees fit. They have no moral requirement to support all kinds of software.

If you disagree with their beliefs, you are free to host your own instance or find a code forge that better aligns with your beliefs. That is the beauty of free software!

▲

hbbio an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Another beauty of free software is they took the project from gitea and gogs before that.

▲

p-e-w an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If you disagree with their beliefs, you are free to host your own instance or find a code forge that better aligns with your beliefs.

Sure, but Codeberg has presented itself as a hoster for Free Software projects, not for Free Software projects that align with some vaguely defined ideology. If they are now the latter, they should start by clearly stating that ideology so users can make an informed decision on whether Codeberg is the right place for them.

The ban on “vibecoded” projects is effectively an invitation to start witch hunts. This is a terrible idea if you want to build a community.

	▲	kurante 24 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Sure, but Codeberg has presented itself as a hoster for Free Software projects, not for Free Software projects that align with some vaguely defined ideology. If they are now the latter, they should start by clearly stating that ideology so users can make an informed decision on whether Codeberg is the right place for them. Well, they kinda do? Go on the main page, it's the second line of text: "Codeberg is a non-profit, community-led effort that provides services to free and open-source projects...". They're community-led, and this was a community decision. > If they are now the latter, they should start by clearly stating that ideology so users can make an informed decision on whether Codeberg is the right place for them What do you want to see then? They've made a blog post about vibecoded with detailed explanations [1], a public banner mentioning they no longer allow cryptocurrency projects and restricting LLM content and with a link to the changelog with the differences in terms of use [2]. Should hackernews also mention that allowed content is dependent on its moderators with vaguely defined ideologies? [1]: https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-... [2]: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/compare/17bdb39b0c1ecd0e42...
	▲	matheusmoreira 17 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> The ban on “vibecoded” projects is effectively an invitation to start witch hunts. It's a guarantee. Those witch hunts will happen now that those opposed to LLMs have official approval.
	▲	rvz 33 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> If they are now the latter, they should start by clearly stating that ideology so users can make an informed decision on whether Codeberg is the right place for them. So far it is now (unofficially) The hoster of Human-made™ non-crypto™ Free Software so far it is fully legal under the jurisdiction or country it resides in (Germany).

▲

matheusmoreira an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> No project is entitled to host their project there

So tiresome. This is going to lead to an even more fragmented free and open source ecosystem. GitHub is the default choice because it has huge network effects. Codeberg just opted out of those.

▲

kurante an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Did they, though? Do we have numbers on how many cryptocurrency projects were removed from Codeberg because of this, since GitHub is the default choice? Or are you suggesting that there is going to be a significant split because of this?

I agree that this is probably going to cause some fragmentation, but I'm not convinced that it will do so in a meaningful matter or at the scale at which it is problematic to the free and open source ecosystem.

For what it's worth, Forgejo is working on federation[1], which might address your networking effect concerns?

[1]: https://forgejo.org/2026-05-monthly-report/#federation

	▲	matheusmoreira 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Or are you suggesting that there is going to be a significant split because of this? There are going to be many splits. Cryptocurrencies. Vibecoding. Whatever else offends them. Whether it will be "significant" or not, remains to be seen. I won't be sticking around to witness it.

▲

krapp an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Good. That's how FOSS is supposed to work.

Codeberg isn't competing against Github for market share, it serves a specific demographic with a specific ideology. Anyone is welcome to use any other host they want for their crypto and AI projects, with whatever policies align with their preferences. Or make your own with blackjack and hookers.

There shouldn't even be "default choices" or "huge network effects" in FOSS anyway. That's just another form of centralization.