作者认为Codeberg有权民主决策，但该政策定义模糊（"大部分"难以量化），实际执行可能依赖社区规范而非明确规则。 开源社区正因LLM和智能体工具分裂，而Codeberg此举可能削弱其作为GitHub的欧洲替代方案所应具备的广泛性和可靠性。
Codeberg 最近修改了条款，将那些主要由生成式 AI 编写的项目排除在外。由于我希望 GitHub 能够面对竞争，我有一些想法。
Codeberg 完全有权这样做。它是一个有成员和民主程序的协会，而这个过程得出了一个结果。但民主是一种做决定的方式，并不保证这个决定是包容的、明智的，甚至对已经依赖它的人有利。多数人仍然可以决定某些项目和人员不再属于其中。
GitHub 的治理从未是民主的，而且平台上有很多我不喜欢的方面。然而，民主并不是我从基础设施中最需要的属性。我需要的是它可预测、可靠，并且对托管的合法开源软件保持相对中立。没有明确宪法的民主提供者在这些方面可能比公司更差。
实际的措辞使情况更加复杂。条款禁止那些大部分由生成式 AI 工具编写代码的项目。在一个活跃开发的代码库中，“大部分”意味着什么，谁还能判断？我无法可靠地为自己近期的许多项目分配作者比例。正是在需要可执行的地方，界限才留有解释的空间。实际上，中间派可能会失利，因为它存在偏见：/2026/4/11/the-center-has-a-bias/。
更严格的界限可能更可取。如果 Codeberg 不希望有 LLM 参与，它应该明确说明。如果它希望防止自主仓库垃圾信息和滥用资源，它应该为此制定规则。当前的中间路线将过多政策委托给版主和社区规范。我目前假设其周围的社区划定了更严厉的社会界限，使项目和维护者即便在技术上遵守，也会不受欢迎。
正如我之前提到的，我希望 GitHub 在开源领域面临真正的竞争。我尤其希望这种竞争部分来自协会，而不是另一家大公司。作为一个欧洲项目，Codeberg 对我来说自然更加重要。它可以选择成为一个具有更强政治认同的小型社区，但这与成为 GitHub 的广泛且可靠的欧洲替代品是不同的目标。
我希望 Codeberg 在这方面能更具前瞻性：愿意托管明日的开源软件，而不仅仅是其社区今天认可的方式制作的软件。它完全有权做出它的选择，但我只是认为这不是一个好的选择。
这篇文章被标记为 ai：/tags/ai/，open-source：/tags/open-source/ 和 thoughts：/tags/thoughts/ 复制为：/2026/7/24/codeberg-divides.md / 查看：/2026/7/24/codeberg-divides.md markdown
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：/2026/4/11/the-center-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.
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：/tags/ai/, open-source：/tags/open-source/ and thoughts：/tags/thoughts/ copy as：/2026/7/24/codeberg-divides.md / view：/2026/7/24/codeberg-divides.md markdown
扫码直达文章详情