Hard policy, light enforcement in practice means there is an actual shadow policy that you don't know, which is pretty bad to the point that it would be illegal if the government did it.
Curious about your comment on two counts (genuinely, not being argumentative):
1. how is this bad, in Codeberg's case, practically speaking?
2. in what cases is this illegal for governments to do? In practice no legislation is perfectly enforced, & even judiciaries have varying degrees of exactness across countries - to the point that things such as desuetude are densely studied legal topics.
(note: I'm aware of the negative ramifications if desuetude but not aware of any negative ramifications of Codeberg's specific ai policy)
Governments have a lot of laws that they don't enforce, or enforce only lightly. For example, weed is still illegal in Netherland, despite many decades of tolerating its use.
Their contention seems mainly focused on the heavy resource use of AI tooling.
They run a service: they could impose limits on the number of submissions, builds, branches, scans, etc, and give additional usage credits to the large community projects they want to encourage.
That & the legal aspects of hosting code of questionable copyright.
The LLM revolution has proven that if you have enough institutional investors, the Berne Convention doesn't apply to you, but it's sofar unclear whether that exemption from international law extends to small EU-based non-profits.
But they don't want to. They want to provide all needs for approved projects. They want that if a FOSS project legitimately releases 50 times a day, they want to make it work. If a slop project is wasting those resources that could be used for KDE, on nonsense, then they don't.
They're not a free for all, they do KYCP (know your customer's projects) with an initial assumption of good faith.
Also they're a voluntary society you can join by contributing money. They're not a charity as such, more like a group of people pooling resources, and also offering them to people outside the group on a good faith basis.
Every single issue they brought up in their blog post starts with even just 1% AI code. If they actually believed the absolutely absurd stuff they spew, banning it all would be the only logical solution.
The current solution solves none of the issues, AND pisses off most sane people (mostly because their arguments are fabrications). They dropped the cake and shit on it too.
I like Codeberg's solution (hard written policy, light good-faith based enforcement), what would you suggest as a better solution?
Hard policy, light enforcement in practice means there is an actual shadow policy that you don't know, which is pretty bad to the point that it would be illegal if the government did it.
Curious about your comment on two counts (genuinely, not being argumentative):
1. how is this bad, in Codeberg's case, practically speaking?
2. in what cases is this illegal for governments to do? In practice no legislation is perfectly enforced, & even judiciaries have varying degrees of exactness across countries - to the point that things such as desuetude are densely studied legal topics.
(note: I'm aware of the negative ramifications if desuetude but not aware of any negative ramifications of Codeberg's specific ai policy)
4 replies →
Governments have a lot of laws that they don't enforce, or enforce only lightly. For example, weed is still illegal in Netherland, despite many decades of tolerating its use.
3 replies →
Their contention seems mainly focused on the heavy resource use of AI tooling.
They run a service: they could impose limits on the number of submissions, builds, branches, scans, etc, and give additional usage credits to the large community projects they want to encourage.
That & the legal aspects of hosting code of questionable copyright.
The LLM revolution has proven that if you have enough institutional investors, the Berne Convention doesn't apply to you, but it's sofar unclear whether that exemption from international law extends to small EU-based non-profits.
But they don't want to. They want to provide all needs for approved projects. They want that if a FOSS project legitimately releases 50 times a day, they want to make it work. If a slop project is wasting those resources that could be used for KDE, on nonsense, then they don't.
They're not a free for all, they do KYCP (know your customer's projects) with an initial assumption of good faith.
Also they're a voluntary society you can join by contributing money. They're not a charity as such, more like a group of people pooling resources, and also offering them to people outside the group on a good faith basis.
Every single issue they brought up in their blog post starts with even just 1% AI code. If they actually believed the absolutely absurd stuff they spew, banning it all would be the only logical solution.
The current solution solves none of the issues, AND pisses off most sane people (mostly because their arguments are fabrications). They dropped the cake and shit on it too.