Linux forks [LWN.net]

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 16:01 UTC (Thu) by bluca (subscriber, #118303)
Parent article: Codeberg: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

Sucks for all the linux forks hosted on that forge, I guess, given they'll have to be deleted now

to post comments

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 17:48 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (9 responses)

They don't prohibit LLM code outright, they're prohibiting low-quality vibe-coded software.

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 19:41 UTC (Thu) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link] (7 responses)

And how exactly would anyone measure that?

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 20:15 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (6 responses)

By looking at it? Purely vibe-coded software is extremely apparent right now.

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 20:53 UTC (Thu) by einar (guest, #98134) [Link] (5 responses)

> By looking at it? Purely vibe-coded software is extremely apparent right now.

Depending on the field, human written code can be several orders of magnitude *worse* than some made by a LLM. I had the misfortune of having to handle that for 10+ years of my career.
So, not necessarily "extremely apparent".

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 20:59 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (4 responses)

Sure. And Codeberg will also exclude bad human-written code according to the same dumping-ground policy.

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 21:03 UTC (Thu) by einar (guest, #98134) [Link]

That wouldn't be the smartest idea. But again, I'm not using Codeberg, so it doesn't matter much to me.

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 21:04 UTC (Thu) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link] (2 responses)

Which part of the policy says that they forbid bad human/artisanal code?

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 21:39 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (1 responses)

The "not a dumping ground" part. Which actually has been there from the beginning.

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 21:47 UTC (Thu) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link]

So if I dump _good_ artisanal code (according to some vague and undefined metric) then I am ok? Good to know

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 19:57 UTC (Thu) by mb (subscriber, #50428) [Link]

https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/96fac426a32d1ba9...

>7. You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools [..].

It's pretty clear.
It's a general ban of "mostly" generated code. (whatever "mostly" means). No ominous "only low quality".

It goes on explaining why it's banned:

>Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3)

False.

>and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean.
Handwritten code also has no such safeguards. (whatever that is)
The xz backdoor was good ol'(tm) handwritten(tm) code.

To tool to prevent such harmful code is called "review". That has nothing to do with whether the code was generated or not.