Codeberg 会员投票通过两项决议：承诺不将用户数据用于训练 LLM，并禁止"vibe-coded"项目

Codeberg e. V. 的年度大会是将权力交到我们活跃成员手中的会议。提案会进行现场讨论，随后以异步方式进行投票。

鉴于大型语言模型（LLM）是一项新兴但有争议的技术，毫不奇怪，有两项投票涉及 Codeberg 对这项技术的立场。为期 14 天的投票于昨天结束，两个提案都被通过。

第一次投票是关于 Codeberg e. V. 在使用你的数据来训练 LLM 的立场声明。

第二次投票更具争议，但也得到了通过，358 票赞成对 144 票反对（另有 14 票弃权），活跃成员投票率约为 50%。这意味着我们的使用条款将发生变化，禁止“vibe-coded 项目”。本文结尾将分享关于实际影响的思考。

在过去的文章中，我们已经概述了 Codeberg 的基础设施如何定期承受高负载：https://blog.codeberg.org/letter-from-codeberg-software-is-about-humans.html，这些负载来自那些计划获取 Codeberg 上托管的所有代码以训练其 LLM 的公司的网页爬虫。

在 Codeberg，我们很高兴提供免费且开放的代码访问。只需运行 git clone 即可尽情使用。

不幸的是，这些爬虫试图读取 Codeberg 上的每一个页面，无论是否有意义。这包括各种问题过滤器变体、Git 历史记录，以及 Git 历史中的实际文件——即使它们仍然相同。

这些不必要的访问会创建昂贵的数据库查询，降低我们所有人的服务质量，需要系统管理员投入大量工作，并迫使我们花时间构建防御机制，而不是开发很酷的新功能。这些机制也会影响新的和现有的合法用户，因为我们不得不对他们的期望工作流程施加限制或直接阻止，从而让他们在使用 Codeberg 时体验变差。

使用 LLM 来处理你的代码会让你肾上腺素激增。你可以以快速速度开发，好像拥有一个庞大的团队一样构建事物。只是你实际上一个人也没有这么大的团队。事实上，你（经常）是孤身一人，与一个将能量转化为代码的统计机器一起工作。

似乎许多“氛围开发者”没有意识到他们实际上周围并没有一个社区。他们建设项目就好像自己有社区一样，并相应地投入资源。我们看到项目有大量的代码活动、频繁的 CI/CD 测试，以及频繁且庞大的发布二进制文件。有时，感觉支持的平台数量甚至超过了实际用户数量。

对我们来说，看到由单个开发者维护、几乎没有用户使用的项目消耗的资源与 Codeberg 上一些最大社区项目相当甚至更多，这似乎很荒谬，而这些最大社区项目对于 CI/CD 和存储资源的使用非常节俭。我们认为让 Codeberg 将宝贵的捐赠资金投入到托管大型幽灵项目中并不合理。

LLM 的训练和部署大幅提高了购买硬件的成本，尤其是 SSD 和内存。例如：我们几年前采购的 €700 的硬盘，现在已涨至 €3,700——而且经常缺货。因此，在 Codeberg 上托管代码变得更加昂贵：https://blog.codeberg.org/new-storage-limits-on-codeberg-what-you-need-to-know.html。

虽然我们拥有自己的硬件：https://blog.codeberg.org/letter-from-codeberg-we-love-our-new-infrastructure.html，因此不直接受到膨胀的“云”租赁成本的影响，但这意味着更换或扩展我们的硬件现在的成本比以前（以及需求）显著增加。虽然我们可能能够承担这些高涨的硬件价格，但这笔钱无法用于其他地方来改善我们的服务和推动 Codeberg 的使命。

这些价格上涨也导致了日益增长的数字鸿沟：小型甚至大型运营者都面临成本上升的威胁，而只有最大的云公司才有可靠的硬件协议。网站托管、存储或计算等服务成本增加，对于许多小型 NGO、本地合作社、研究项目以及其他使用数字工具的人群来说都是一个挑战，而这些工具直到最近我们还都认为是理所当然的。

运营数字基础设施不仅变得更加昂贵，甚至更基本的数字工具如电脑和智能手机也受到成本上升的影响，使个人计算再次成为奢侈品——但现在是在一个数字工具几乎成为参与社会的必要条件的世界中。计算和存储能力有限的设备剥夺了用户的自主权，使他们陷入云服务提供商重新出售这些服务的成本陷阱中。

对基础设施的负面影响不仅止于此，还涉及更基本的公共基础设施：由于专门为训练大型语言模型（LLM）建造的数据中心固有的能源和水需求，许多社区如今已经面临电费和饮用水费用的上涨。除了成本上升外，居住在数据中心附近的人还直接受到日益增加的空气和噪音污染的影响：https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2026-04-28/living-in-hell-data-center-neighbors-grapple-with-noise-air-pollution。

为了能够为这些数据中心供电，背后的公司还积极游说希望获得环境法规豁免：在法兰克福，数据中心目前已经消耗了本地电力的40%：https://algorithmwatch.org/de/ressourcenverbrauch-von-ki/，且需求在不断上升。为了满足这种需求，他们希望使用化石燃料。

受到大型语言模型使用影响的不仅仅是数字和公共基础设施。自由/开源软件生态系统，我们认为 Codeberg 是其中重要的一部分，是一种以协作为中心的社会现象。以这种方式工作只可能依赖于自由分享和相互学习。这甚至包括一些非常小的工具，它们被共享和再利用，并围绕这些工具开始协作。相比之下，通过采用大型语言模型，人们往往从零开始编写一次性软件。虽然这增加了“共享”代码的数量，但这些代码大多不仅没有被任何人“编写”，也没有人维护。

在自由/开源软件（FLOSS）中广泛使用大型语言模型（LLM）正在成为对贡献者之间信任乃至协作理念本身的多维度攻击。由于人们提交的（通常出于好意的）低投入、由LLM生成的贡献需要大量时间进行审查，维护者的工作负担增加。与此同时，哪些项目是由经验丰富的开发者维护的，哪些是由LLM生成而没有任何有意义的人类监督和投入的，变得越来越不清晰。对于许可证要求互惠的项目（copyleft projects）来说，LLM还会导致“许可证洗白”，即通过从训练数据“生成”代码，使copyleft代码失去了互惠性要求。

我们观察到不信任日益增加的趋势，以至于那些真正花时间分析问题或分享建议的人，反而被指控使用了LLM，即便他们并未使用。与此同时，其他人教导他们的LLM隐藏轨迹并主动避免常见模式，这使得在审查贡献和沟通时，人们必须更加仔细地留意机器生成的痕迹。

这些因素使协作不仅更加困难，而且回报更低：随着协作交易成本的增加，人们贡献高质量软件项目的可能性下降，而更倾向于“即兴编码”满足个人需求的一次性软件，这类软件不会进一步发展。结果形成恶性循环：协作变得越来越不值得投入，而大量未维护、没有改进的一次性软件却在增加。

尽管出发点常常良好，把一个提示的结果分享并称之为“自由软件”，并不会让世界变得更美好。Codeberg 不是，也不希望成为一个存放这种无人会关注的生成型一次性软件的地方。我们希望成为人们共同协作、改进软件的平台。在此背景下，最近的投票可以理解为对这些原则的再确认：由于我们希望以人为中心进行协作，我们不会主动支持或参与LLM的创建，也不会将有限资源用于存储可能污染我们FLOSS公共资源的一次性软件。

更改我们的使用条款清楚地传达了我们对使命和希望支持的项目的态度。话虽如此，你不会在几天内看到内容的大规模删除。我们的审核团队不会一开始就生成受影响仓库的详尽列表来进行移除。相反，我们会通过类似下面示例的案例开始实施新规则。我们背后是人类，他们非常关心自由/开源软件项目和社区。

我们承认，许多开发者已经开始将大型语言模型（LLMs）作为工作流程中的工具。有些人广泛使用它，几乎不手动编程，另一些人只将特定任务委托给它。我们理解你想知道这些变化将如何影响你未来的项目。虽然我们无法给出简单的答案，但我们会分享一些评论，应该能解决讨论中提出的大部分问题。

如果你的工作属于这些情况，那么你很可能不会受到影响：

我们也不会花费大量时间和资源来自动扫描 Codeberg 上的内容。因此，虽然以下使用案例是不鼓励的（类似私人仓库），但在实际操作中很可能会被容忍：

然而，我们也需要诚实地说明某些使用情况可能不再受到 Codeberg 欢迎。如果你发现自己在这个名单上，你不必立即迁移，但可能有其他平台更适合你的需求：https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/#alternatives-to-codeberg。

你可以查看使用条款中添加的具体更改：https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/96fac426a32d1ba91ff879366d59bf1af54080c2。

The Codeberg e. V. annual assembly is the meeting that puts power into the hand of our active members. Proposals are discussed live, and later voted on asynchronously.

Since Large Language Models (LLMs) are an emerging but controversial technology, it is not surprising that two of the votes were concerned with Codeberg's position about this technology. The 14-day voting period ended yesterday and both proposals were accepted.

The first vote was a statement about Codeberg e. V.'s stance on using your data to train LLMs.

The second vote was more controversial, but was also accepted with 358 agreements vs 144 disagreements (and 14 abstentions), with a high voter turn-out of around 50% of active members. It implies a change to our terms of use to prohibit 'vibe-coded projects'. We'll share thoughts about the practical impact at the end of the article.

In past posts we have already outlined how our infrastructure at Codeberg is regularly put under heavy load：https://blog.codeberg.org/letter-from-codeberg-software-is-about-humans.html from webcrawlers of those companies who plan to ingest all of the code that is hosted on Codeberg for training their LLMs.

At Codeberg, we are happy to provide free and open access to code. Just run git clone and enjoy.

Unfortunately, these crawlers instead try to read every single page from Codeberg, no matter if it makes sense. This includes all the different issue filter variants, Git history, as well as the actual files at any point in Git history - even if they are still equal.

These needless accesses create expensive database queries that diminish the service quality for all of us, requires substantial amounts of work from our system administrators, and force us to spend time building defensive mechanisms instead of cool new stuff. Mechanisms that also affect new and existing legitimate users, as we're having to impose limits or outright blocks on their desired workflow; leaving them a worse experience with Codeberg.

Using LLMs to work with your code gives you a kick of adrenaline. You can develop at a rapid pace, build things as if you had a large team. Only that you have none. In fact, you are (often) alone, working with a statistical machine that turns energy into code.

It seems like many ‘vibe coders’ don't realize that they don't actually have a community around them. They build projects as if they had, and spend resources accordingly. We see projects having a lot of code activity, heavy CI/CD testing, frequent and large release binaries. Sometimes, it feels like the amount of supported platforms exceeds the amount of actual users.

To us, it seems ridiculous to see projects with a single developer and virtually no users consuming as much or even more resources than some of the largest community projects on Codeberg, which operate frugal with CI/CD and storage resources. We do not believe it is reasonable for Codeberg to invest our precious donation money into hosting of large ghost projects.

The training and deployment of LLMs has drastically raised the cost of buying hardware, in particular for SSDs and memory. To give you an example: The type of drive we sourced for € 700 only some years ago has risen to € 3.700 now - and is often out of stock. As a consequence, hosting code on Codeberg is becoming more expensive：https://blog.codeberg.org/new-storage-limits-on-codeberg-what-you-need-to-know.html.

While we are owning our hardware：https://blog.codeberg.org/letter-from-codeberg-we-love-our-new-infrastructure.html, and are thus not directly impacted by inflating 'cloud' rental costs, it means that replacing or expanding our hardware is now substantially more costly than it used (and needs) to be. While we might be able to afford paying those inflated hardware prices, it is money that we can not spend elsewhere to improve our service and foster the mission of Codeberg.

These price hikes also lead to a growing digital divide : Small and even large operators are endangered by rising costs, while only the largest cloud companies have reliable agreements for hardware. Increasing costs for services like website hosting, storage or compute can be challenging to a lot of small NGOs, local coops, research projects and other usage of digital tools that we considered for granted until recently.

Not only does it become more expensive to run digital infrastructure, even more basic digital tools like computers and smartphones are affected by the rising costs, turning personal computing back into a luxury — but now in a world where digital tools are a de-facto requirement to participate in society. Devices with little compute and storage capacity take away sovereignity from users and move them into the cost trap of cloud providers selling those back to you.

The negative impacts on infrastructures don't stop there, but also concern more basic civic infrastructure: Due to the energy and water demands that are inherent to the data centers built specifically for training LLMs, many communities already today experience rising consumer costs for both electricity and drinking water. And beyond the rising costs, those living close to the data centers are directly affected by increasing air and noise pollution：https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2026-04-28/living-in-hell-data-center-neighbors-grapple-with-noise-air-pollution.

To be able to power up those data centers, the companies behind them are also actively lobbying to be exempt from environmental regulations: In Frankfurt, data centers already now consume 40% of the local electricity：https://algorithmwatch.org/de/ressourcenverbrauch-von-ki/, and demand is rising. To meet this demand, they want to use fossil fuels.

It is not purely the digital and civic infrastructures that are impacted by the use of LLMs. The free/libre software ecosystem, of which we consider Codeberg an important part of, is a social phenomenon centered on collaboration. Working in this way is only possible thanks to free sharing and mutual learning. This includes even very small tools that are shared and re-used and around which collaboration can start out. In contrast, by adopting LLMs people tend to code single-use software from scratch. While this leads to an increase in 'shared' code, it is mostly code that not only has not been 'written' by anyone but is also not maintained by anyone.

The widespread use of LLMs in FLOSS is instead becoming a multidimensional attack on the trust between contributors and the very idea of convivial collaboration itself. Maintainers are under an increased work-load due to people submitting (often well-meaning) low-effort, LLM-generated contributions that require substantial amounts of time to review. At the same time it is becoming increasingly less clear which projects are maintained by experienced developers and which ones are LLM-generated without any meaningful human oversight and input. In the case of copyleft projects, LLMs additionally also lead to 'license laundering', where copyleft code is stripped of its reciprocity requirements by 'generating' it out of the training data.

We observe an increasing trend of mistrusting each other, up to the point where people who put in actual effort to analyze issues or share their suggestions are being accused of having used LLMs when they did not. At the same time, others instruct their LLMs to hide their traces and actively avoid common patterns, prompting others in reviewing contributions and communication more carefully for signs of machine generation.

Together, these forces make collaboration not only harder but also less rewarding: With the transaction cost of collaboration increasing, people are becoming less likely to contribute to creating high-quality software projects and more likely to 'vibecode' a one-off software that is specific to your need, and won't evolve beyond. We get a vicious cycle where collaboration is becoming less and less rewarding, while the amount of single-use software that's unmaintained and never sees any improvements is going up.

Although often well intentioned, sharing the result of an prompt and calling it "libre software" does not make the world a better place. Codeberg is not and does not want to be a place to dump such generated single-use software that no one else will ever look at. We are a place for people to collaborate and improve software together. Within this context, the recent votes can be understood as a reconfirmation of those principles: As we want to center on human collaboration, we will not actively support or engage in the creation of LLMs and will not put our limited resources to use for storing single-use software that would pollute our FLOSS commons.

Changing our Terms of Use sends a strong signal about our mission and projects we want to support. Having said that, you won't see a mass-deletion of content within days. Our moderation team will not start off generating an exhaustive list of affected repositories to remove. Instead, using cases like the examples below we will start operationalizing the new rules. We're humans at the other end, who care deeply about free/libre software projects and communities.

We acknowledge that many developers have started to embrace LLMs as a tool in their workflows. Some use it extensively and rarely code by hand, others delegate only specific tasks to it. We understand that you want to know how the change affects your projects going forward. While we can't give an easy answer, we'll share some remarks that should address most of the concerns raised in the discussion.

If your work fits into these cases, it is unlikely that you are affected at all:

We will also not spend significant amount of time and resources to automatically scan content on Codeberg. So while the following use cases are discouraged (similar to private repositories), they are likely to be tolerated in practice:

However, we also need to be honest about certain use cases that might no longer be welcome on Codeberg. If you see yourself on this list, you don't need to move right away, but there might be other places that better fit your needs：https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/#alternatives-to-codeberg:

You can check the specific change added to the Terms of Use：https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/96fac426a32d1ba91ff879366d59bf1af54080c2.