Codeberg Divides
摘要
文章指出 Codeberg 作为协会通过民主程序修改条款，禁止大多由生成式 AI 工具编写的项目；作者认为其有权如此，但强调需要可预测、可靠且中立的基础设施，民主决策未必保证包容或明智。条款中 “mostly” 的定义在活跃代码库中难以界定，易导致中间地带受影响；作者建议若想完全禁止 LLM 参与应明确表述，或针对仓库垃圾和资源滥用制定规则，而非依赖社区规范。文中还讨论开源与自由软件社区因 LLM 在版权、劳动、能源、质量等问题上的深刻分裂，呼吁更前瞻地接纳未来软件开发方式，而非仅支持当前社区认可的做法。
荐读理由
Ronacher 拆解 Codeberg 'mostly AI code' 条款的界定难题、中心派项目被排斥风险以及民主治理 vs 可预测基础设施的取舍，让你判断自家 AI 辅助项目是否适合托管或迁移
原文
Armin Ronacher's Thoughts and Writings
Codeberg Divides
written on July 24, 2026
Codeberg recently changed its terms to exclude projects that are largely written with generative AI. Since I want GitHub to face competition I have thoughts.
Codeberg is entirely within its rights to do this. It is an association with members and a democratic process, and that process produced a result. But democracy is a way of making a decision, not a guarantee that the decision is inclusive, wise, or even good for the people already depending on it. A majority can still decide that certain projects and people no longer belong.
GitHub’s governance has never been democratic and there is plenty about the platform that I dislike. Yet democracy is not the main property I need from infrastructure. I need it to be predictable, dependable, and reasonably neutral towards the legal Open Source software hosted on it. A democratic provider without a clear constitution can be worse at those things than a corporation.
The actual wording makes this more difficult. The terms prohibit projects that mostly consist of code written by generative AI tools. In an actively developed codebase, what does “mostly” mean, and who can still tell? I could not reliably assign authorship percentages to many of my own recent projects. The line is open to interpretation precisely where it needs to be enforceable. In practice the center will probably lose out, as it has a bias.
A harsher line would probably be preferable. If Codeberg wants no LLM involvement, it should say so. If it wants to prevent autonomous repository spam and abusive resource consumption, it should write rules for those instead. The current middle ground delegates too much of the policy to moderators and community norms. I’m currently assuming the community around it draws a much harsher social boundary, making projects and maintainers unwelcome even when they technically comply.
It is a real shame that the Open Source and Free Software communities are splitting this deeply over LLMs and agents. There are serious questions about copyright, labor, energy use, slop, and maintainers drowning in generated contributions. But these tools are also becoming part of how software is made. The Open Source world needs to figure out how to engage with that future, not just divide into camps. More importantly, LLMs if done and used well, should be welcome to all of us. They could be used to reclaim control and power, away from large corporations and institutions.
As I mentioned before, I want GitHub to face true competition in the Open Source space. I would particularly like some of it to come from associations rather than another large corporation. As a European project, Codeberg naturally matters to me even more. It can choose to be a smaller community with a stronger political identity, but that is a different ambition from being a broad and dependable European alternative to GitHub.
I wish Codeberg were more forward-looking here: willing to host the Open Source software of tomorrow, not only software made in the ways its community approves of today. It has every right to make the choice it made, but I just do not think it is a good one.
This entry was tagged ai, open-source and thoughts
© Copyright 2026 by Armin Ronacher.
Content licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Contact me via mail, bluesky, x, or github.
You can sponsor me on github.
More info: imprint & AI transparency. Subscribe via atom / RSS.
Color scheme: , , .
这条对你有帮助吗？