this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
420 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

86590 readers
3052 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] trackball_fetish@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 day ago

Hahahahaaaa hell yeah

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 28 points 2 days ago (8 children)

7. You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).

That feels like a reasonable middle ground. Allow some things with some AI written code, but don't allow stuff that is a majority of AI code.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How on earth will they determine that though?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 6 points 1 day ago (9 children)

I can't see the future, but this all doesn't sound like an ideological "vibe code is bad, we don't allow it" but a "the copyright of vibe coded content is unclear across jurisdictions, we don't allow it." So I don't think it's something they'll say "hey, this looks vibe coded, deleted." Many projects self proclaim they're vibe coded. Many projects list every commit that is vibe coded. It seems likely they'll go after those projects instead.

But yes, I'm not an oracle, and Codeberg could always heel turn and turn this into a witch hunt, but I don't think they've earned that reputation.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 69 points 2 days ago (10 children)

A repo host that can remove your repo at any moment because someone can accuse your code of being “vibe coded” is not a repo host I’d trust. It shouldn’t matter how good, bad, or A.I. written your code is. It’s a hosting platform.

[–] MrLLM@ani.social 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I mean, I agree with you, but there’s still room for abuse.

Have you seen OpenClaw’s issues page?

Vibe coders and AI agents are floating it with garbage, if they were to do that to Codeberg, it’ll probably run out of resources pretty quickly

[–] Coki91@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

How bad cou...

HOLY SHIT

[–] Kaligalis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Just use that cat girl captcha thing, every other FOSS site uses, and the problem is solved.

[–] cenariodantesco@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

This right here

[–] crimsonpoodle@pawb.social 21 points 2 days ago

I mean the host can always remove your repo. We’ll see how they handle it; but I would assume it won’t be without care. But yet another reason to host your own as well.

[–] kayazere@feddit.nl 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (9 children)

The main argument is due to copyright issues of LLM generated code. Github will happily remove repos which violated copyright laws or IP laws. It makes sense that Codeberg doesn’t want to host code which may be violating copyright law.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] hitwright@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Seeing how codeberg is FOSS only, I'm not suprised. Vibe-coded projects is a HUGE legal trap considering licensing. And seeing how it's based in Germany (notorious about siding with license owner against regular individuals) it only makes sense

[–] Fedditor385@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

How can I prove that I have ownership over code I wrote myself, and that it isn't copyrighted somewhere in the world? How can anyone prove that code is written by a human or AI (if you don't commit obvious AI harness files and folders)?

Developers also "generate" code and are also "trained" on code they written as freelancers or employees for others which is potentially copyrighted. In that aspect just because it's written by hand, doesn't imply the writer has copyright on it.

[–] hitwright@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

What? The point I was trying to make is that AI generated content is going to be treated as CC licensed. It is difficult to incorporate under other FOSS projects. Mostly considering that it doesn't exactly distinguish between code, library, binary and patents. It's simplier to avoid it altogether if your primary mission is FOSS

Considering your comment about verification of authorship, it's likely to be treated the same as it is now. You are the author, unless proven otherwise. And you are right. Even if you are the author and wrote every single code yourself, you can infringe on someones paten

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How can I prove that I have ownership over code I wrote myself, and that it isn’t copyrighted somewhere in the world?

As long as you had no access to that code and have some proof of that then that should be quite easy. I.e. you never worked for a company that claims copyright on something you wrote.

Developers also “generate” code and are also “trained” on code they written as freelancers or employees for others which is potentially copyrighted.

Then you need to do a proper clean-room rewrite with people who had provably no access to the original code.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theherk@lemmy.world 77 points 2 days ago (20 children)

I get it, but determining and moreso verifying code is mostly generated is so intractable that this will likely not do anything practically. Well, perhaps it will discourage some disclosure.

[–] Essence_of_Meh@lemmy.world 54 points 2 days ago (9 children)

I don't think anyone expects to catch every vibe coded project that might end up on the site. It's seems to be about nurturing specific direction for their community, giving admins clear rules on this issue and making their decisions easier in case they do find (or get a report about) a clearly AI "led" project.

Even if vibe coder manages to stick around, they can't be sure their projects won't disappear at random due to the new rules. Might be enough to prevent some of them from using the site.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think a lot of the time with these things is not really about filtering every single offending project but stablishing a legal precedent to remove a project the moment it is found to be violating the rules.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kaligalis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

The idea is probably to have an easy joker reason to randomly ban any repo which is for some otherwise hard to justify reason not wanted on the site. It's a common corpo practice to have extra vague and impossible-to-disprove rules like that.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 21 points 2 days ago

Like anyone who's offended by this isn't already slopping for Microsoft's GitHub.

[–] python@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

based. So glad I moved there recently.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›