Forges Shouldn't Have Opinions About Your Code

Forges Shouldn't Have Opinions About Your Code(1matin.com)

2 points by 1matin 23 days ago | 3 comments

theamk 23 days ago |

The author has 3 problems with codeberg + sourcehut specifically:

1. They are limiting resources - no more unlimited storage, no more free CI runners, adding Anubis to protect server load.

2. They have banned cryptocurrencies and blockchains

3. They are banning AI contributions

I think 1 is perfectly reasonable for every service. Machines cost money, and that money needs to come from somewhere. When one donates to a platform like this, the intention is to support open-source code hosting. Wasting this money on cryptospam and badly-coded AI scrapers is a very bad idea.

For 2, there is a general crypto-apologist logic about how crypto-currency is OK while completely ignoring that most of the crypto-currency projects are just grifts to steal money from people. There are real reputation risks in being associated with that stuff, and I can't really blame anyone for wanting to stay away from it.

Point 3, "block AI contribution", is actually the most important one - as author points, even Linux has AI patches, and it would not be acceptable under the new rules. Making a post just about that part could have generated much more interesting discussions, too bad that points 1 and 2 detract from the message.

(And yes, every service has some opinions, including Github which blocks active malware (when discovered) and copyright violations. It's just they don't touch author's areas of interest, so author does not care)

eesmith 23 days ago | |

Thing is, "And funnily enough, DeVault himself awkwardly failed to state his own flawed policy. ... One of the most consequential pieces of free software on the planet, and the guy writing the rule can't tell you which side it lands on." is a misinterpretation.

That text points to the discussion topic, dated 19 Aug 2026, when the policy was not yet decided and in flux.

The final policy is "original content written with or which facilitates the use of LLMs (large language models) or other generative AI technologies", with interpretation at https://sourcehut.org/blog/2026-08-27-tos-changes-and-llms/ posted 27 Aug 2026.

>Drew DeVault: This policy is worded carefully to allow some room for reasonable interpretation. For instance, the choice to target “original” content in the policy is intended to allow you to host mirrors of major codebases that may have more lenient LLM policies, such as the Linux kernel. An individual who contributes to a project like Linux can host their personal tree and stage patches on SourceHut, and a Linux kernel subsystem which has an internal policy on LLM use which aligns with SourceHut is welcome to host their tree, mailing lists, and so on, on our platform, without worrying about the impact of AI-assisted code in the rest of Linux. However, SourceHut would not be suitable as the upstream platform for the broader Linux project as a consequence of their liberal LLM policy.

eesmith 23 days ago |

> That's the actual thing wrong here. Not that they have opinions today, but that you can never know what they'll have opinions about tomorrow, and they'll never tell you in advance.

I've used Sourceforge, Google Code, GitHub, BitBucket, and others.

Over time these added annoying ads, mandated 2FA, shut down, and dropped support for Mercurial support, as examples.

The lesson learned it that organizational interests always override your interests. Every single one is a potential trap with a grace period - and I got trapped by each and every one.

> Now imagine you were one of the people who put a crypto project on Codeberg in 2020, or used AI assistance for your SourceHut-hosted project in 2025, built years of community around it, and then saw the headline on HN. Your work didn't get banned for what it was. It got banned for what the platform silently decided to become, several years after you signed up for something else entirely.

For a specific example, I migrated to Sourcehut because BitBucket decided to drop Mercurial support, so my way of doing development "got banned", including code repos I made available for scientific research.

But I didn't cry out "censorship!" This is the way life is, if you depend on external services. If you want something different, set up a contract with them.

> What got pitched was an alternative, and thousands of people built repositories, communities, and reputations on top of that pitch in good faith.

We can see what got pitched at from https://drewdevault.com/blog/sr.ht-general-availability/

"The 500 foot view is that sr.ht is a 100% free and open source software forge, with a hosted version of the services running at sr.ht for your convenience. Unlike GitHub, which is almost entirely closed source, and Gitlab, which is mostly open source but with a proprietary premium offering, all of sr.ht is completely open source, with a copyleft license. You’re welcome to install it on your own hardware, and detailed instructions are available for those who want to do so. You can also send patches upstream, which are then integrated into the hosted version."

The primary pitch was a forge you could use sr.ht on your own hardware, with the option of running on sr.ht services. The first helps avoid the trap of using the second.

> Now I beg that GitHub fixes its issues so people stop migrating away. Because

That's what happens when you depend on a non-free forge - you have no choice but to beg them to change.

> one of the most fundamental gifts GitHub gave to the world: Not having opinions about software.

GitHub has opinions. Its AUP says you may not use GitHub to develop "software for generating unauthorized product licensing keys, or software for bypassing checks for product licensing keys, including extension of a free license beyond its trial period".

> Malware [on GitHub]? Also welcome!

Then that should have been a clue. Malware development has never been allowed on hosted sr.ht. https://web.archive.org/web/20190819052848/https://man.sr.ht... .

> Now imagine this scenario: Bob hates GitHub. Bob has a legit Crypto project on Codeberg.

Now imagine this scenario. Alice, Carol, Dave, Erin, and Frank hate cryptocurrency schemes and believe it can never be a legitimate use of their dues. All have legit projects on Codeberg, but after the organization decides to support crypto projects they decide to self-host Forgejo on their own respective hardware.

How is this better for the environment?

> Or they imply that their ban meaningfully affects projects' progress and visibility, which is literally censorship

By the definition every forge does censorship because every forge has policies which meaningfully affect projects' progress and visibility.

Also, https://xkcd.com/1357/ .