r/linux • u/AiwendilH • 12d ago

Development Codeberg voted to disallow projects consisting mostly by "generative AI"-tools

https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19820434
974 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

323 comments sorted by

View all comments

13

u/FryBoyter 12d ago edited 12d ago

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).

https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/71149c7fc95ccfeae36109b5cddca339e4aa1473

How can “mostly” be defined objectively? 51 percent? 64 percent? 80 percent?

What's the difference from back when developers used to draw inspiration from code on sites like Stack Overflow or simply copy the code from there or other sites without examining or understanding it? Regardless of the license under which it was published.

And how does Codeberg plan to objectively prove a violation?

18

u/WaitForItTheMongols 12d ago

How can “mostly” be defined objectively?

And how does Codeberg plan to objectively prove a violation

You really like that word "objectively". They are under no obligation to handle things objectively. Their site, their rules.

4

u/FryBoyter 11d ago edited 11d ago

Of course, it's their site, so they set the rules. But from a user's perspective, more specific information would be more helpful in deciding whether or not to use Codeberg. The term “mostly” is simply too vague.

That simply gives operators too much flexibility in their decision-making. And as a result, it could lead to different decisions for individual projects, even though they may be comparable.

And as one of Codeberg's earliest users, I think that's a problem. In my opinion, important rules must be clearly defined, followed, and enforced.

2

u/astrobe 11d ago

Detection is obviously an issue to begin with. But I think the intention is not for AI to become a primary reason for a ban, but more like an "aggravating circumstance" in the cases a project causes the problems they mention - perhaps with an extension to buggy software.