446
Codeberg bans vibe coded projects
(blog.codeberg.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
446 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
86563 readers
5259 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
How on earth will they determine that though?
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.
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.
Did you not read the actual change?
So you can do a little copyright violation but not too much?
If you have more specific questions about Codeberg's decision, you should ask them, not me.
I am only calling out the inconsistency of their statement.
Tell them then, not me. I'm not affiliated with Codeberg. I only read the change set.
Let's be real here: Most future projects will be mostly written by AI.
Sure, the good ones will have proper human QA. But Claude Code is so much faster at writing and rewriting surprisingly good code, that ignoring it is just like ignoring IDEs was a decade ago.
You can still write code without AI, syntax highlighting, code-suggestions, documentation tooltips, inspections, and fully integrated version control. But all these tools legitimately make software development easier.
People still ignore IDEs. In fact, in certain circles, it is seen as a badge of honor to use Vim or Emacs instead of some modern solution.
Regardless of that, it still fails to address the very legitimate copyright concerns.
Let's be real here, the concerns about what the copyright is of code that's produced by AI is still sort of in the air, especially for a site that wants to host content from across the globe. Codeberg picking its battles and not wanting to deal with that for now seems reasonable.
Let's be real here, the ethical concerns over LLM use far outweigh any copyright concerns and are the real reason people should refrain from using them in any way, shape, or form.
Yeah like whether it's stolen or not. Whether it's a copyright violation. Oh wait.
Was that a comeback? I think we're agreeing with each other here. It does matter if stuff is stolen, which all LLM generated stuff is. I was referring more to the environmental impacts and all, because I'm sick of ppl talking about copyright as if that's what makes LLMs suck. Even if it was legal under copyright law, it'd still be awful on all fronts.