Codeberg seems to ban vibecoded Projects; reason might be german copyright law

>It looks like Codeberg want only copyrighted material in their service, so it is reliable in the future that e.g. licenses must be followed (e.g. GPL), and copyright doesn’t suddenly get declared as being of the model owner, and it isn’t a copy of something else.
That is a cautious reasonable position - in early days of LLM coding (3 years ago!) indemnity from model companies was a major issue globally because of the lack of clarity of the law around this. The US specifically has settled on it being (effectively?) public domain. But I don’t think that is fully settled, and it certainly isn’t settled in international copyright law.
The goal of the vague “mostly” in the Codeberg change is to ensure there is enough human input to the code they host, to be reasonably sure under German copyright law it is copyright of the person sharing it.

edit: link to poll that caused it (might be down due to high traffic) https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19820434

edit 1: i dont defend/oppose this move, i just find it interesting

  • curbstickle@anarchist.nexusMEnglish
    182·
    4 days ago

    Please update with the [AIT] tag in the title.

    Edit: I see that you’re active, please update the title as required. Locked in the interim.

  • poVoq@slrpnk.netEnglish
    69·
    5 days ago

    Those comments on HN are hilarious 😅 That site really works as a parody of bad tech bro takes if you ignore that most of them are sadly dead serious.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1240·
      5 days ago

      Huh. I mostly read people moralizing the use of AI and wanting to slap a scarlet AI on anyone who uses it while derisively using the terms “slop” and “vibe” to poison the well.

  • Err(()).unwrap()@lemmy.worldEnglish
    33·
    5 days ago

    The US specifically has settled on it being (effectively?) public domain.

    The US Copyright Office has declared that it would not grant copyright protection to AI-generated material due to a lack of human authorship, but it is very far from being codified by law, nor does it say anything about the ownership of the material.

    • eleijeep@piefed.socialEnglish
      17·
      5 days ago

      This is still a problem for OSS licensing, since in order to license a work you need to be the copyright holder.

      This might mean that OSS projects find it even more difficult to assert their licenses against violators in court, since they would need to prove that the part of the code that was copied was not AI output.

      Banning the output of AI tools in OSS codebases is a sensible move for any project that actually cares about enforcing the license that their code is released under.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      71·
      5 days ago

      At the very least it’s a mistake to say the law is “settled” at all. It’s barely been tested.

    • poVoq@slrpnk.netEnglish
      4·
      5 days ago

      Indeed, this ruling says nothing about something being a derivative work, all it says is that AI generated works can not create new copyright claims, which is totally sensible and non-controversial.

      • JensSpahnpasta@feddit.orgEnglish
        2·
        5 days ago

        The bigger problem is that AI tools have ingested a lot of copyrighted and FOSS code and totally will use that code in your projects. So even if AI output can’t be copyrighted, you are still on the hook if your AI copies copyrighted code into your own project. People will notice if your project just changed the variable names

  • irmadlad@lemmy.worldEnglish
    291·
    5 days ago

    It means if the guy running Codeberg doesn’t like it. This is his fiefdom, not a public square. Make your own fiefdom for AI coding. You could call it Vibeberg.

    LMAO! That’s hilarious and true. Look, until you own your own platform, with your own rules for said platform, or are a significant investor in said platform, then you are subject to the whims of that platform.

  • e8d79@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    191·
    4 days ago

    Kinda hilarious how outraged these AI bros get the second someone says no to their worthless slop. How dare they not wanting to be a dumping ground for your LLM extrusions. I always had a low opinion of HN (and Lobsters, which is HN but now in red) but their users really got insufferable in the last few years. Now its just a cesspool of bad takes, anti-intellectualism and unfortunately more and more far-right talking points.

  • nitroemdash@lemmy.wtfEnglish
    620·
    5 days ago

    If copyright status is the reason, they should ban any, even a single-line AI contributions.

    And it seems a short-sighted decision. Now AI is slop, but what about in 10? 20 years? They would rewrite TOS again?

    And what about people they want to migrate from GitHub?

    • Mora@pawb.socialEnglish
      412·
      5 days ago

      They would rewrite TOS again?

      Yes, that is how that works.

      And what about people they want to migrate from GitHub?

      Slop to Microslop, code to Codeberg. That simple.

    • poVoq@slrpnk.netEnglish
      13·
      5 days ago

      There are plenty of other public git forges you can migrate your LLM assisted projects to 🤷

    • iamthetot@piefed.caEnglish
      7·
      4 days ago

      TOS get rewritten way more often than once every ten to twenty years lol, that it really not a big deal.