Comment by Hendrikto
4 days ago
> a hub built around “free software” is now telling its users which kinds of software are deemed good and which are not, and that is closer to censorship than it might seem. Once a platform writes into its terms that an entire category “harms its reputation” and can be removed on that basis, the deciding factor stops being whether the code is legal, or functional, or useful, and becomes whether it aligns with a position the platform has taken.
To me, this is the key point: Service providers should be neutral. Especially ones claiming to be free as in freedom.
Only get involved insofar as it is required by law, and stay out of it otherwise. Individuals can have their opinions and biases, but keep them out of the platforms.
Providers should host whatever they feel like hosting. Models were nost likely trained on stolen content, so not allowing vibecoded is taking a stance in favour of free software.
You people keep forgetting that free software is inherintly political and so platforms are more than wellcome of taking a stance. If you don't like don't use it. Quite simple
Free software is about freedom and liberty. Sure, you can decide to prohibit certain use cases. That is absolutely legal and absolutely okay to do. But it makes you non-neutral and non-free.
Just because you are making free software doesn't mean you should get everything for free.
1 reply →
Fortunately, Codeberg is not free software. It's a service provider providing a service. They themselves can be as non-neutral and non-free as they like. The software beneath it all remains free.
Seriously, just host your own Forgejo if it's that much of a problem. It's right there.
What? Free software was never neutral. You think Stallman and Torvalds did what they did because they were neutral?
If I dont like the direction an open source project is taking and I fork it. Does make it less free?
By your line of thought project should all have MIT licenses because you should not add restrictions
4 replies →