Right - I see the other topic has been locked / author hasn’t returned to follow community rules.

Here’s the original topic https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386

and a measured (IMHO) response to it. (BTW, do your self a favour and change tabs with that site open :)

https://マリウス.com/i-regret-migrating-to-codeberg/

It’s a tough spot, Codeberg has found themselves in and I wish them luck. But beyond that, this is (yet) another reminder that in 2026, if you don’t self host it, the cloud is just someone else computer

  • slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I fail to see why people are getting worked up. While yes the tos says the ambiguous “mostly” the rest of the paragraph gives you a clear indication why. Copyright. Which I the same reason many other platforms don’t level allow vibe code into their codebases.

    CB does not want to host code a large number of repos that in the future could be classified as stolen code, and now as the code host will have to do the work of deleting it all when they get sued for hosting it. And you know right holders are just waiting to do that.

      • copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Okay, so I lack the sources, so I ask others to please back me up; but isn’t this anything but settled law? There was something in the US but it was more of a recommendation than a law, and will have to be tested in court. Also, Codeberg is hosted in Germany, so its laws would apply there.

    • kingofras@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s more than just the ‘mostly’. In legal proceedings they would really struggle to ‘demonstrate cause’, i.e. what is copyrighted, and what is not - not to mention demonstrating criminal intent.

      As I wrote before, these are phase 2 effects of a new emerging technology. All it will take is one company to go after them in court to reverse this.

      • DeckPacker@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        What do you mean? They are perfectly in their right to enforce this rule, even if they couldn’t prove that their reasoning made sense. They are not obligated to host your slop

        • kingofras@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I agree they are within their right to do it, I’m saying it legally wouldn’t survive a challenge in court the way they implemented it.

          No need for your combative tone or assuming I have slop that needs hosting.

          • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Where were you during the nineties and early 2000?

            Man were there brutal unjust lawsuits that broke people. Remember that 11 yo girl vs Madonna? The Pirate Bay? And so on.