Egregoros

We love you @Codeberg

https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html

As an association, we believe that these technologies are incompatible with responsibly creating and maintaining free & open source software. [...]
The development team of none: [...] To us, it seems ridiculous to see projects with a single developer and virtually no users consuming as much or even more resources than some of the largest community projects on Codeberg, which operate frugal with CI/CD and storage resources. We do not believe it is reasonable for Codeberg to invest our precious donation money into hosting of large ghost projects. [...]
The free/libre software ecosystem, of which we consider Codeberg an important part of, is a social phenomenon centered on collaboration. Working in this way is only possible thanks to free sharing and mutual learning. [...] by adopting LLMs people tend to code single-use software from scratch. While this leads to an increase in 'shared' code, it is mostly code that not only has not been 'written' by anyone but is also not maintained by anyone. [...]

The widespread use of LLMs in FLOSS is instead becoming a multidimensional attack on the trust between contributors and the very idea of convivial collaboration itself. [...]
Together, these forces make collaboration not only harder but also less rewarding: With the transaction cost of collaboration increasing, people are becoming less likely to contribute to creating high-quality software projects and more likely to 'vibecode' a one-off software that is specific to your need, and won't evolve beyond. We get a vicious cycle where collaboration is becoming less and less rewarding, while the amount of single-use software that's unmaintained and never sees any improvements is going up.

Although often well intentioned, sharing the result of an prompt and calling it "libre software" does not make the world a better place. Codeberg is not and does not want to be a place to dump such generated single-use software that no one else will ever look at. We are a place for people to collaborate and improve software together

@sun @jonny @Codeberg Especially in the case of "add feature X to project Y that was refused with: No use case/We don't do that." If the project doesn't want it, might as well fork it, get an LLM to do most of the work and be done with it. Not like the changes will get upstreamed anyway, so code quality doesn't matter as much for a personal fork.

This case is where the "making a better world" argument falls apart, I get my feature I want and everyone else gets nothing (likely not even the patches).

@jonny @sun I've read the whole blogpost hours before even replying here. There is nothing much to talk about as it mostly is fluff I've read and heard tens of times already with unfortunate facts sprinkled in.

The only point worth talking about is right at the end and that is their plans of enforcing said policy. And as I've expected, unless a project is visibly mostly vibecoded, the enforcement will come down to vibes. Which I expected as the policy isn't enforceable without being at least somewhat subjective. That said, I'm personally not a fan of rules/policies that cannot be enforced with near 100% accuracy. But it is their non-profit, their forge hosting, they are free to do whatever the members want.

At least the policy is defined and not completely vague unlike their blanket "crypto related projects" ban they even lie about in the banner that pops up when you are logged in today. If you wanted my opinion on this whole situation, that is it. Nothing more, nothing less. I have no comment on the part you quoted, simply because I mostly do not care about what it talks about.