Right - I see the other topic has been locked / author hasn’t returned to follow community rules.
Here’s the original topic https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386
and a measured (IMHO) response to it. (BTW, do your self a favour and change tabs with that site open :)
https://マリウス.com/i-regret-migrating-to-codeberg/
It’s a tough spot, Codeberg has found themselves in and I wish them luck. But beyond that, this is (yet) another reminder that in 2026, if you don’t self host it, the cloud is just someone else computer
I still don’t see the problem with Codeberg’s decision. Of course they will kick projects that they don’t want, just like github will kick projects they don’t want. The issue isn’t what is and isn’t allowed, it’s who allows it, as it always has been.
Of course selfhosting is one way to control it, but in Codeberg there is a process to be part of that governance, which the author didn’t partake in. At which point there is nothing more to discuss, get in the governance first and then you can write a blog post about how the governance is bad, isn’t aligned with you or whatever.
It’s 2026. Who still expects things to be perfect with a third-party without participating ? Be part of the governance, selfhosted or not, always
The problem for me was the decision process and the piss poor way it was communicated, plain and simple. I’m absolutely fine with the decision in itself, it’s their platform and they can do that if they feel like it.
But instead of voting on an single agenda point about a small TOS change in a closed members meeting and dealing with the consequences later, I would have appreciated open communication and discussion on that topic not only among the members but also the user base before making such blanket decisions. As far as I heard there wasn’t even a real discussion among the members, it was just a vote on a TOS change, which was introduced and advertised by a member shortly before the meeting took place. I could be wrong on the last point, but these kinds of salami tactics or “Vereinsmeierei” in an association would make Codeberg an unreliable platform for hosting a project.
Like someone else in here has said, this time it was banning Crypto and LLMs, next time it could be Ruby on Rails (because of their ties to the racist entrepreneur DHH) or whatever TOS change makes it through their members-only voting process. Again, that’s fine for Codeberg but it’s not a good place for any non-member to host a project.