> ... Recently I tried to create a repo there and nothing pointed out any of the noted restrictions or preferences.

> I think that is a clear communication problem. ...

The following is very clearly posted on their account creation page: [0]

  By registering for a Codeberg account, you consent to our Privacy Policy [1] and agree to our Terms of Use. [2]

You'll note that [2] is the same document linked to by the commenter you replied to. Perhaps being informed of your obligations when you create an account is insufficient, and you require alert-fatigue-inducing quantities of restatement of the company's policy documents throughout the UI?

[0] <https://codeberg.org/user/sign_up>

[1] <https://codeberg.org/codeberg/org/src/PrivacyPolicy.md>

[2] <https://codeberg.org/codeberg/org/src/TermsOfUse.md>

▲ supriyo-biswas an hour ago | parent [-]

> Perhaps being informed of your obligations when you create an account is insufficient

I'm sure that if we were talking about a corporate entity, then people would have retorted with how "no one reads the ToS" and "most ToSes are unenforceable", and guess what? In a world where significant AI assistance is becoming common, finding out which project is AI generated or even knowing the level of AI assistance is well nigh impossible and could be very well unenforceable.

Edit: It has come to my attention that Codeberg is a registered association[1]. It would be "fun" to see them argue about how they may argue that an AI assisted project has "harmed their reputation".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_association_(German...

	▲	simoncion 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> ...then people would have retorted with how "no one reads the ToS"... This is unrelated to OP's claims that Codeberg not only doesn't make it clear that they "[P]rovide the essential infrastructure and organizational framework for the development of Open-Source Projects in decentralized and global communities, and other endeavours which serve this mission." and that "Private repositories are only allowed for things required for FLOSS projects, like storing secrets, team-internal discussions or hiding projects from the public until they're ready for usage and/or contribution.", but that Codeberg is unreasonable for not making that clear. OP's assertions are why I said `Perhaps being informed of your obligations when you create an account is insufficient, and you require alert-fatigue-inducing quantities of restatement of the company's policy documents throughout the UI?` > ...and "most ToSes are unenforceable"... Eh? Codeberg's remedy is to cancel your account and attempt to ban you if you attempt to keep coming back and doing the things that got your account canceled. Do you intend to suggest that a European or USian court would disagree that Codeberg is permitted to do this?