Proposal Assembly 2026: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions #1253
Code Issues 15 Pull requests 17 Activity
Conversation 21 Commits 2 Files changed 1 +1
Here is the proposed addition for the ToU that @Gusted and I agreed on post-assembly for the upcoming membership vote. 🙏
The discussion for this proposal is available for Codeberg e. V. members in the forum: <https://forum.codeberg.org/d/139-resolutions-for-assembly-on-codeberg-taking-a-stand-against-ai>
Signed-off-by: gedankenstuecke gedankenstuecke@noreply.codeberg.org
Here is the proposed addition for the ToU that @Gusted and I agreed on post-assembly for the upcoming membership vote. 🙏 The discussion for this proposal is available for Codeberg e. V. members in the forum: https://forum.codeberg.org/d/139-resolutions-for-assembly-on-codeberg-taking-a-stand-against-ai Signed-off-by: gedankenstuecke <gedankenstuecke@noreply.codeberg.org>
👍 29 👎 9 ❤️ 4
gedankenstueckeadded 1 commit 2026-06-29 22:34:33 +02:00
Signed-off-by: gedankenstuecke <gedankenstuecke@noreply.codeberg.org>
Agree with the suggestion in spirit, but correct English would be:
"Such projects have an unclear copyright status..."
and either
"...furthermore have little safeguard..."
or
"...furthermore have few safeguards..."
Agree with the suggestion in spirit, but correct English would be: "Such projects have an unclear copyright status..." and either "...furthermore have little safeguard..." or "...furthermore have few safeguards..."
👍 3
As highlighted by @Gusted for #1254, status quo for now due to being sent for voting, minor edits can be made by the board/presidium if the text generally passes.
As highlighted by @Gusted for #1254, status quo for now due to being sent for voting, minor edits can be made by the board/presidium if the text generally passes.
"You must not share projects"
- Is this reffering to PR's cpmmitted to (other) Codeberg repositories
- Is 'sharing' including sharing code, outside Codeberg, from a Codeberg repository
- Is it accepted that such repository is kept 'private' (note, here sharing could also include allowing individuals access to said provate repository)
- What is 'mostly' ?
"that mostly consist of code "
"You must not share projects" - Is this reffering to PR's cpmmitted to (other) Codeberg repositories - Is 'sharing' including sharing code, outside Codeberg, from a Codeberg repository - Is it accepted that such repository is kept 'private' (note, here sharing could also include allowing individuals access to said provate repository) - "that mostly consist of code " - What is 'mostly' ?
👍 1 ❤️ 5
Beyond it being too late for substantial changes, it's out of scope for this change. It uses the identical language around sharing as used for the other points on acceptable/unacceptable content.
If you understand what sharing means in the context of "You must not share any content that's expressing hate or encouraging violence", the same applies here.
Beyond it being too late for substantial changes, it's out of scope for this change. It uses the identical language around sharing as used for the other points on acceptable/unacceptable content. If you understand what sharing means in the context of "You must not share any content that's expressing hate or encouraging violence", the same applies here.
I am in favor of this proposal. The copyright issues alone are sufficient to be problematic for a non-profit.
I am in favor of this proposal. The copyright issues alone are sufficient to be problematic for a non-profit.
@infosec812 wrote in #1253 (comment):
I am in favor of this proposal. The copyright issues alone are sufficient to be problematic for a non-profit.
The copyright issue is always relevant, not directly related to this proposal alone. It’s also quite often broken, as is LICENSE
@infosec812 wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-18801527: > I am in favor of this proposal. The copyright issues alone are sufficient to be problematic for a non-profit. The copyright issue is always relevant, not directly related to this proposal alone. It’s also quite often broken, as is LICENSE
Seems to me like it goes a bit far to not be allowed to share it for educational purposes (the readme could carry a prominent notice; the main file could be broken on purpose so it cannot be run as-is; etc.) as well as prohibiting manually reading the code and then sharing it. E.g. if it's a 150-line python utility, you can perfectly well read, understand, and test it, and only then share it, but this would now be disallowed without writing another 75 dummy lines. I am really conflicted what to vote on this specific wording for the terms of use since I also see the upsides
Seems to me like it goes a bit far to not be allowed to share it for educational purposes (the readme could carry a prominent notice; the main file could be broken on purpose so it cannot be run as-is; etc.) as well as prohibiting manually reading the code and then sharing it. E.g. if it's a 150-line python utility, you can perfectly well read, understand, and test it, and only then share it, but this would now be disallowed without writing another 75 dummy lines. I am really conflicted what to vote on this specific wording for the terms of use since I also see the upsides
Seems to me like it goes a bit far to not be allowed to share it for educational purposes
Slapping the label "educational purposes" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It doesn't magically make the copyright issues go away. Even if it did in certain jurisdictions, it certainly doesn't in others.
if it's a 150-line python utility, you can perfectly well read, understand, and test it, and only then share it
As far as I understand it, this isn't about the wording being fool-proof & covering all corner cases. It's supposed to capture our intent & sentiment as well as reflect reality: even while you could read that one 150 line Python script & fully test & understand it, reality shows that regularly reviewing huge LLM contributing quickly degenerates into "LGTM, merge" due to fatigue etc. The majority of "mostly just LLM-generated" code will not be thoroughly understood and reviewed.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Such wording doesn't need to cover every possible case.
I'm in favor.
\> Seems to me like it goes a bit far to not be allowed to share it for educational purposes Slapping the label "educational purposes" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It doesn't magically make the copyright issues go away. Even if it did in certain jurisdictions, it certainly doesn't in others. > if it's a 150-line python utility, you can perfectly well read, understand, and test it, and only then share it As far as I understand it, this isn't about the wording being fool-proof & covering all corner cases. It's supposed to capture our intent & sentiment as well as reflect reality: even while you \could\ read that one 150 line Python script & fully test & understand it, reality shows that regularly reviewing huge LLM contributing quickly degenerates into "LGTM, merge" due to fatigue etc. The majority of "mostly just LLM-generated" code will not be thoroughly understood and reviewed. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Such wording doesn't \need\ to cover every possible case. I'm in favor.
Why is the focus exclusively on "copyright status"? Codeberg is meant to be the ethical alternative, so the ethical issues should also be brought up, not shoved aside.
also, "mostly" is up to too-lenient interpretation. would that mean a codebase that is 49% slop will be platformed? something like "in significant part" would be better. make it clear that no contributor notably outsourcing their thinking to an LLM is part of the target audience here.
Why is the focus exclusively on "copyright status"? Codeberg is meant to be the ethical alternative, so the ethical issues should also be brought up, not shoved aside. also, "mostly" is up to too-lenient interpretation. would that mean a codebase that is 49% slop will be platformed? something like "in significant part" would be better. make it clear that no contributor notably outsourcing their thinking to an LLM is part of the target audience here.
👍 5 ❤️ 5
"A contribution should be worth more to the project than the time it takes to review it."
"A contribution should be worth more to the project than the time it takes to review it."
👍 7
Why is the focus exclusively on "copyright status"? Codeberg is meant to be the ethical alternative
@hsza
hi! i'm not on the codeberg team at all, but i wanted to reply my thoughts. The short answer is because, in meme terms "we live in a society". Copyright is an unavoidable fact and LLMs are right now working in a legal gray area which can be problematic, SPECIALLY for open source projects! What if suddenly the AI companies lobby laws to make sure the copyright of LLM-coded projects goes towards them? Or something like asking for percentages of profit, exclusive usage, etc. Even if you were to make your case via the judicial route, how many Open Source projects have the money to fight that? Working in a legal gray area is pracitcally a blank check that allows these companies to force projects to god-knows-what in the future.
also, "mostly" is up to too-lenient interpretation
To the rest of everyone here, I totally agree and am also worried about this! I've been thinking that the best scenario for llms is basically assisted typing. While the worst case is agentic hands-off vibecoding. The bad bit is this is a spectrum definitely, so where do we draw the line? I think for starters LLM-automated commits or PRs could be prohibited. The Godot team is prohibiting the usage of LLMs for human-to-human communication (as well as just generally in the project basically) which I think it's a good idea. I'm quite interested to see how this discussion evolves and particularly where do we draw the line? as I like seeing the possibility of good usages of LLMs. But again, the legal concerns are real and unavoidable
\> Why is the focus exclusively on "copyright status"? Codeberg is meant to be the ethical alternative @hsza hi! i'm not on the codeberg team at all, but i wanted to reply my thoughts. The short answer is because, in meme terms "we live in a society". Copyright is an unavoidable fact and LLMs are right now working in a legal gray area which can be problematic, SPECIALLY for open source projects! What if suddenly the AI companies lobby laws to make sure the copyright of LLM-coded projects goes towards them? Or something like asking for percentages of profit, exclusive usage, etc. Even if you were to make your case via the judicial route, how many Open Source projects have the money to fight that? Working in a legal gray area is pracitcally a blank check that allows these companies to force projects to god-knows-what in the future. > also, "mostly" is up to too-lenient interpretation To the rest of everyone here, I totally agree and am also worried about this! I've been thinking that the best scenario for llms is basically assisted typing. While the worst case is agentic hands-off vibecoding. The bad bit is this is a spectrum definitely, so where do we draw the line? I think for starters LLM-automated commits or PRs could be prohibited. The Godot team is prohibiting the usage of LLMs for human-to-human communication (as well as just generally in the project basically) which I think it's a good idea. I'm quite interested to see how this discussion evolves and particularly \\*where do we draw the line?\\* as I like seeing the possibility of good usages of LLMs. But again, the legal concerns are real and unavoidable
legal concerns are unavoidable yes ^^ but they aren't the only concerns are they? while the current reasoning works the case against slop is much larger than just that
legal concerns are unavoidable yes ^^ but they aren't the \only\ concerns are they? while the current reasoning works the case against slop is much larger than just that
This has passed. @gedankenstuecke and I will prepare a blog post about this along with the statement about the usage of AI by Codeberg which also passed.
!\image\ This has passed. @gedankenstuecke and I will prepare a blog post about this along with the statement about the usage of AI by Codeberg which also passed.
60 KiB
👍 82 👎 4 😕 3 👀 5 ❤️ 68 🎉 73 🚀 11
gedankenstueckeadded 1 commit 2026-07-22 02:26:32 +02:00
Signed-off-by: Bastian Greshake Tzovaras <bgreshake@googlemail.com>
@Gusted where can the vote result be seen (for a passive codeberg member who was thus not invited to vote, this time).
@Gusted where can the vote result be seen (for a passive codeberg member who was thus not invited to vote, this time).
In Australia and certain former British colonies (but not in Britain itself), the copyright status of AI-generated works is actually pretty clear: it belongs to whoever operated the AI tool to generate the work, and the duration and the scope of the rights is identical to the corporate copyright.
In Australia and certain former British colonies (but not in Britain itself), the copyright status of AI-generated works is actually pretty clear: it belongs to whoever operated the AI tool to generate the work, and the duration and the scope of the rights is identical to the corporate copyright.
So NYT copyright laudering via LLM is legal in such a case?
(Has the NYT lost its case against OpenAI? Nope, the case is still on-going <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5FNew%5FYork%5FTimes%5Fv.%5FMicrosoft%5Fand%5FOpenAI>)
So NYT copyright laudering via LLM is legal in such a case? (Has the NYT lost its case against OpenAI? Nope, the case is still on-going https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_New\_York\_Times\_v.\_Microsoft\_and\_OpenAI)
@erkinalp Can you please provide sources for such statements? At cursory glance, I can only find commentary from Australia that disagrees with that clear cut stance. In particular, they more agree with the statement given here: it's unclear, it may be in some cases, it may not be in others.
Also, Codeberg can't be responsible for going state-by-state, it's users are worldwide.
@erkinalp Can you please provide sources for such statements? At cursory glance, I can only find commentary from Australia that disagrees with that clear cut stance. In particular, they more agree with the statement given here: it's unclear, it may be in some cases, it may not be in others. Also, Codeberg can't be responsible for going state-by-state, it's users are worldwide.
arm7: stop multiplayer CMD frames from sharing the TX buffer #15
@mbunkus wrote in #1253 (comment):
>> Seems to me like it goes a bit far to not be allowed to share it for educational purposes >
Slapping the label "educational purposes" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It doesn't magically make the copyright issues go away. Even if it did in certain jurisdictions, it certainly doesn't in others.> >> if it's a 150-line python utility, you can perfectly well read, understand, and test it, and only then share it >
As far as I understand it, this isn't about the wording being fool-proof & covering all corner cases. It's supposed to capture our intent & sentiment as well as reflect reality: even while you could read that one 150 line Python script & fully test & understand it, reality shows that regularly reviewing huge LLM contributing quickly degenerates into "LGTM, merge" due to fatigue etc. The majority of "mostly just LLM-generated" code will not be thoroughly understood and reviewed.>
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Such wording doesn't need to cover every possible case.>
I'm in favor.
I mean...LLM contributions to a project are very different from projects written entirely by LLMs (the latter, broader of which seems like the target here).
I agree that perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good, but I feel like maybe it would be better to draw a clearer line in the sand about what's acceptable in terms of "mostly"? Even if just in the blog post? Maybe I'm just missing context from the forum post...obviously this was meant to be a Codeberg e.V. discussion.
That being said, from Codeberg's perspective, if the goal is to not host tons of slop, fair enough.
@mbunkus wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-18904550: > > Seems to me like it goes a bit far to not be allowed to share it for educational purposes > > Slapping the label "educational purposes" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It doesn't magically make the copyright issues go away. Even if it did in certain jurisdictions, it certainly doesn't in others. > > > if it's a 150-line python utility, you can perfectly well read, understand, and test it, and only then share it > > As far as I understand it, this isn't about the wording being fool-proof & covering all corner cases. It's supposed to capture our intent & sentiment as well as reflect reality: even while you \could\ read that one 150 line Python script & fully test & understand it, reality shows that regularly reviewing huge LLM contributing quickly degenerates into "LGTM, merge" due to fatigue etc. The majority of "mostly just LLM-generated" code will not be thoroughly understood and reviewed. > > Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Such wording doesn't \need\ to cover every possible case. > > I'm in favor. I mean...LLM \contributions\ to a project are very different from projects written entirely by LLMs (the latter, broader of which seems like the target here). I agree that perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good, but I feel like maybe it would be better to draw a clearer line in the sand about what's acceptable in terms of "mostly"? Even if just in the blog post? Maybe I'm just missing context from the forum post...obviously this was meant to be a Codeberg e.V. discussion. That being said, from Codeberg's perspective, if the goal is to not host tons of slop, fair enough.
This has passed. @gedankenstuecke and I will prepare a blog post about this along with the statement about the usage of AI by Codeberg which also passed
Can you please clarify what this means for existing projects that have been using LLM output?
What is the enforcement going to be? Who is going to enforce it, what are the escalation mechanisms and so on? Because I’m afraid this moves Codeberg from a passive role (no unfree licenses) to an active enforcement, which will require a “police force” to effectively enforce.
You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex).
What does “written by” mean? Who defines authorship? What does “mostly” mean? Who defines ratio? Is this going to be enforced in practice? Who is going to enforce it? Based on which reporting?
\> This has passed. @gedankenstuecke and I will prepare a blog post about this along with the statement about the usage of AI by Codeberg which also passed Can you please clarify what this means for existing projects that have been using LLM output? What is the enforcement going to be? Who is going to enforce it, what are the escalation mechanisms and so on? Because I’m afraid this moves Codeberg from a passive role (no unfree licenses) to an active enforcement, which will require a “police force” to effectively enforce. > You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as \Claude\, \OpenAI Codex\). What does “written by” mean? Who defines authorship? What does “mostly” mean? Who defines ratio? Is this going to be enforced in practice? Who is going to enforce it? Based on which reporting?
I just like hour ago had an idea to ai-generate maps web app for fun. I am not publishing on codeberg tho, as I selfhost what I can.
I am curious about the things @Profpatsch mentioned, since I am kinda pedantic.
What does “written by” mean? Who defines authorship? What does “mostly” mean? Who defines ratio? Is this going to be enforced in practice? Who is going to enforce it? Based on which reporting?
I just like hour ago had an idea to ai-generate maps web app for fun. I am not publishing on codeberg tho, as I selfhost what I can. I am curious about the things @Profpatsch mentioned, since I am kinda pedantic. > What does “written by” mean? Who defines authorship? What does “mostly” mean? Who defines ratio? Is this going to be enforced in practice? Who is going to enforce it? Based on which reporting?
😆 1
This is not a place to continue or start a new discussion about AI or not AI and its copyright status in the world, it will not change the results or how its going to be interpreted. I'm closing this issue, you're more than welcome to continue this at https://matrix.to/#/#codeberg-offtopic:matrix.org
@Profpatsch We'll use the blog post to clarify what this entails for Codeberg users.
@GuillaumeDIDIER <https://forum.codeberg.org/d/183-polls-of-annual-assembly-2026-concluded>
This is not a place to continue or start a new discussion about AI or not AI and its copyright status in the world, it will not change the results or how its going to be interpreted. I'm closing this issue, you're more than welcome to continue this at https://matrix.to/#/#codeberg-offtopic:matrix.org @Profpatsch We'll use the blog post to clarify what this entails for Codeberg users. @GuillaumeDIDIER https://forum.codeberg.org/d/183-polls-of-annual-assembly-2026-concluded
👍 2 ❤️ 7
Crash opening PR (null TimelineComment) #1639
This discussion has been locked. Commenting is limited to contributors.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels duplicateThis issue or pull request already exists enhancemenetprivacypolicyFeature concerning the Privacy Policy enhancementNew feature enhancementbylawsFeature concerning the Bylaws enhancementtosFeature concerning the ToS help wantedNeed some help invalidSomething is wrong questionMore information is needed reviewedProposal was reviewed and will be considered wontfixThis won't be fixed
No labels duplicate enhancemenetprivacypolicy enhancement enhancementbylaws enhancementtos help wanted invalid question reviewed wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
15 participants
Notifications
Subscribe
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set
Reference
Codeberg/org!1253
Write Preview
Loading…
| Rows | | | ------- | | | Columns | |
Cancel OK
Url Description
Hint: With a URL in your clipboard, you can paste directly into the editor to create a link.
Cancel OK
Cancel Save
Repository
Codeberg/org
Title
Body
Create issue
No description provided.
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
No Yes