Ok, bye bye [LWN.net]

Ok, bye bye

Posted Jul 25, 2026 13:41 UTC (Sat) by muase (subscriber, #178466)
In reply to: Ok, bye bye by pizza
Parent article: Codeberg: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

> "No, but" means you don't actually believe that first word

The question was

>> It's their choice anyway. I just expect that no single cent of my tax euros goes to them.
> Should anyone hosting a forge be required to serve absolutely everyone?

And NO, I don't believe that anyone hosting a forge should be required to serve absolutely every one – what you do with your own money is yours and only yours to decide (as long it's legal etc.) – BUT if your policy causes to discriminate e.g. disabled people via proxy, you should not get public founding for your project anymore. There is a clear difference between privately funded projects, and projects that are funded by public grants; and it's important to distinguish here.

> and the rest of your response shows you have no effin' clue what 'bigot', 'racist', or even 'ablelist' actually means out in the real world.

What makes you think that? You don't only do not know me, but I also mentioned an actual real-world example from my personal life how that rule affects disabled people IRL, and will effectively keep them out of the platform. I also explained how that rule raises language barriers again. It is a prime example of a policy that disproportionately affects disabled people or non-native speakers; and it is a pretty good case-study of discrimination via proxy – if you disagree with that position, I would be curious to hear an actual argument aside from "you have no effin' clue"?

And I think the bigotry is obvious too – if your entire business is built on LLM-assisted tech stacks, but you don't want any LLM-assisted code on your platform, that is not what I would call a congruent philosophy. If not even your own core tech stack conforms to your own policy, how would you call that?

> Yeah, so what? That doesn't mean that Codeberg (or you, or I) has to provide a platform to host or promote them. Or anything else, for that matter.

No, this was not about what Codeberg, or you, or I have to do – again: you can do whatever you want (as long it's not illegal). The sole argument was about why you shouldn't be granted tax money as funding if you run certain policies like the aforementioned. And it was about where the vitriol comes from if a project that receives a significant amount of public funding establishes a policy with such exclusionary side effects.

to post comments

Ok, bye bye

Posted Jul 25, 2026 16:04 UTC (Sat) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> BUT if your policy causes to discriminate e.g. disabled people via proxy, you should not get public founding for your project anymore.

(btw, I think you mean to say "funding", not "founding")

You have yet to explain how "We are not hosting projects created with/by LLMs" policy discriminates against disabled people.

"discriminating on choice of tools used to create <X>" is so laughably beyond any accepted legal definition of a "protected class" (even by the most diehard ADA ambulance chasing lawyers) that it would apply to practically everyone in nearly every field.

(Especially when there are numerous other hosting providers that gladly host LLM content, to the point of trying to force their preferred LLMs down your throat)

> not what I would call a congruent philosophy

Even if we accept your exaggerations as fact, so what?

By your definition, there probably isn't a single person in the history of humanity that is good enough.
(As the saying goes, "Perfection is the enemy of good")

Meanwhile, you are _still_ stretching any reasonable definition of "Bigotry".

BTW, I say this as someone who grew up in a bigoted and racist society, and is currently living in an area that has a long, infamously bloody history of systemic bigotry and racism. "The terms of service of software hosting provider for your personal hobby software" is laughably irrelevant to folks for whom, at best, "software as a hobby" is a distant luxury (eg requiring expensive equipment and forking over money for ongoing services when they are already struggling to keep a roof over their head and food in their bellies), and at worst, still have to suffer direct harassment and risk of injury or death.