this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
285 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

86649 readers
2936 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
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
285
Codeberg bans vibe coded projects (blog.codeberg.org)
submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by beep@piefed.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
125 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1279028/codeberg-bans-vibe-coded-projects

Relevant .

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It does sound like "vibe code bad".

Because if they were actually concerned about copyright, they would ban all LLM code, not just some LLM code.

There is no need for a repository hosting software to decide what people are allowed to upload unless it is literal Nazi or kiddy diddle content or something else illegal.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Did you not read the actual change?

  1. 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).
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

mostly

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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).

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So you can do a little copyright violation but not too much?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If you have more specific questions about Codeberg's decision, you should ask them, not me.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I am only calling out the inconsistency of their statement.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 4 days ago

Tell them then, not me. I'm not affiliated with Codeberg. I only read the change set.