코드버그, LLM 크롤링 추출물 이용약관 금지 결의

This website requires JavaScript. Codeberg / org Watch 49 Star 122 Fork 44 Code Issues 15 Pull requests 17 Activity Proposal Assembly 2026: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions #1253 Merged Gusted merged 2 commits from gedankenstuecke/org:20260629-llm-proposal into main 2026-07-22 02:27:01 +02:00 Conversation 17 Commits 2 Files changed 1 +1 gedankenstuecke commented 2026-06-29 22:34:33 +02:00 Member Copy link Here is the proposed addition for the ToU that @Gusted and I agreed on post-assembly for the upcoming membership vote. 🙏 The discussion for this proposal is available for Codeberg e. V. members in the forum: https://forum.codeberg.org/d/139-resolutions-for-assembly-on-codeberg-taking-a-stand-against-ai Signed-off-by: gedankenstuecke gedankenstuecke@noreply.codeberg.org Here is the proposed addition for the ToU that @Gusted and I agreed on post-assembly for the upcoming membership vote. 🙏 The discussion for this proposal is available for Codeberg e. V. members in the forum: https://forum.codeberg.org/d/139-resolutions-for-assembly-on-codeberg-taking-a-stand-against-ai Signed-off-by: gedankenstuecke <gedankenstuecke@noreply.codeberg.org> 👍 11 👎 1 gedankenstuecke added 1 commit 2026-06-29 22:34:33 +02:00 Proposal Assembly 2026: prohibit LLM-extrusions ... 96fac426a3 Signed-off-by: gedankenstuecke <gedankenstuecke@noreply.codeberg.org> camopants requested changes 2026-07-07 20:20:01 +02:00 camopants left a comment Copy link Agree with the suggestion in spirit, but correct English would be: &#34;Such projects have an unclear copyright status...&#34; and either &#34;...furthermore have little safeguard...&#34; or &#34;...furthermore have few safeguards...&#34; Agree with the suggestion in spirit, but correct English would be: &#34;Such projects have an unclear copyright status...&#34; and either &#34;...furthermore have little safeguard...&#34; or &#34;...furthermore have few safeguards...&#34; 👍 3 gedankenstuecke commented 2026-07-07 21:21:02 +02:00 Author Member Copy link As highlighted by @Gusted for #1254 , status quo for now due to being sent for voting, minor edits can be made by the board/presidium if the text generally passes. As highlighted by @Gusted for #1254, status quo for now due to being sent for voting, minor edits can be made by the board/presidium if the text generally passes. nieldk commented 2026-07-08 13:12:08 +02:00 First-time contributor Copy link &#34;You must not share projects&#34; Is this reffering to PR's cpmmitted to (other) Codeberg repositories Is 'sharing' including sharing code, outside Codeberg, from a Codeberg repository Is it accepted that such repository is kept 'private' (note, here sharing could also include allowing individuals access to said provate repository) &#34;that mostly consist of code &#34; What is 'mostly' ? &#34;You must not share projects&#34; - Is this reffering to PR's cpmmitted to (other) Codeberg repositories - Is 'sharing' including sharing code, outside Codeberg, from a Codeberg repository - Is it accepted that such repository is kept 'private' (note, here sharing could also include allowing individuals access to said provate repository) - &#34;that mostly consist of code &#34; - What is 'mostly' ? ❤️ 3 gedankenstuecke commented 2026-07-08 13:52:13 +02:00 Author Member Copy link Beyond it being too late for substantial changes, it's out of scope for this change. It uses the identical language around sharing as used for the other points on acceptable/unacceptable content. If you understand what sharing means in the context of &#34;You must not share any content that's expressing hate or encouraging violence&#34;, the same applies here. Beyond it being too late for substantial changes, it's out of scope for this change. It uses the identical language around sharing as used for the other points on acceptable/unacceptable content. If you understand what sharing means in the context of &#34;You must not share any content that's expressing hate or encouraging violence&#34;, the same applies here. infosec812 commented 2026-07-08 14:42:14 +02:00 First-time contributor Copy link I am in favor of this proposal. The copyright issues alone are sufficient to be problematic for a non-profit. I am in favor of this proposal. The copyright issues alone are sufficient to be problematic for a non-profit. nieldk commented 2026-07-08 15:55:26 +02:00 First-time contributor Copy link @infosec812 wrote in #1253 (comment) : I am in favor of this proposal. The copyright issues alone are sufficient to be problematic for a non-profit. The copyright issue is always relevant, not directly related to this proposal alone. It’s also quite often broken, as is LICENSE @infosec812 wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-18801527: > I am in favor of this proposal. The copyright issues alone are sufficient to be problematic for a non-profit. The copyright issue is always relevant, not directly related to this proposal alone. It’s also quite often broken, as is LICENSE lucg commented 2026-07-08 18:40:09 +02:00 First-time contributor Copy link Seems to me like it goes a bit far to not be allowed to share it for educational purposes (the readme could carry a prominent notice; the main file could be broken on purpose so it cannot be run as-is; etc.) as well as prohibiting manually reading the code and then sharing it. E.g. if it's a 150-line python utility, you can perfectly well read, understand, and test it, and only then share it, but this would now be disallowed without writing another 75 dummy lines. I am really conflicted what to vote on this specific wording for the terms of use since I also see the upsides Seems to me like it goes a bit far to not be allowed to share it for educational purposes (the readme could carry a prominent notice; the main file could be broken on purpose so it cannot be run as-is; etc.) as well as prohibiting manually reading the code and then sharing it. E.g. if it's a 150-line python utility, you can perfectly well read, understand, and test it, and only then share it, but this would now be disallowed without writing another 75 dummy lines. I am really conflicted what to vote on this specific wording for the terms of use since I also see the upsides mbunkus commented 2026-07-09 23:25:18 +02:00 First-time contributor Copy link Seems to me like it goes a bit far to not be allowed to share it for educational purposes Slapping the label &#34;educational purposes&#34; is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It doesn't magically make the copyright issues go away. Even if it did in certain jurisdictions, it certainly doesn't in others. if it's a 150-line python utility, you can perfectly well read, understand, and test it, and only then share it As far as I understand it, this isn't about the wording being fool-proof & covering all corner cases. It's supposed to capture our intent & sentiment as well as reflect reality: even while you could read that one 150 line Python script & fully test & understand it, reality shows that regularly reviewing huge LLM contributing quickly degenerates into &#34;LGTM, merge&#34; due to fatigue etc. The majority of &#34;mostly just LLM-generated&#34; code will not be thoroughly understood and reviewed. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Such wording doesn't need to cover every possible case. I'm in favor. > Seems to me like it goes a bit far to not be allowed to share it for educational purposes Slapping the label &#34;educational purposes&#34; is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It doesn't magically make the copyright issues go away. Even if it did in certain jurisdictions, it certainly doesn't in others. > if it's a 150-line python utility, you can perfectly well read, understand, and test it, and only then share it As far as I understand it, this isn't about the wording being fool-proof & covering all corner cases. It's supposed to capture our intent & sentiment as well as reflect reality: even while you _could_ read that one 150 line