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

  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    What hasn’t happened? Sure, this isn’t wide spread yet, but it also took malicious law firms a while before they realized going after p2p torrent users is a lucrative business.

    And I seem to have a much better grasp at copyright than you do.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      P2P torrent users are nothing like a code hosting platform. 🤣

      As has been said - their liability for llm code is no different from hosting any other code. They already have the same risk. And that is typically that they must respond to take-down notices which they are already doing.

      They are already dealing with all of the problems they would be dealing with with llm code.

      It’s just code puritanism wrapped in pseudo legal justification. Own it.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        At this point I must assume you are trolling 🤦

        It is a totally different thing to have the occasional copyright take down request from a legitimate copyright holder, or hosting code that is in the majority likely copyright infringing and just waiting for someone to start targeting for mass copyright litigation.

          • poVoq@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            It is not. There are plenty of studies showing that LLMs spit out code that is near verbatim to existing code and LLM companies even go so far as to instruct their models to not also add the corresponding license/copyright headers with that code.

            There are probably law firms analysing common code patterns LLMs often use right now and are approaching copyright holders of similar enough code to buy up the rights. It might not all stand up in court, but it will be enough to scare some people into settling for fee that guarantees a profit for these law firms. This is a tried and true method for an entire industry of law firms.

              • poVoq@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                19 hours ago

                You realized that those parts refer to two different things? But since you clearly live in a world entirely detached from reality I don’t think this makes sense to discuss further.

                • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  14 hours ago

                  You know what’s funny? Codeberg has said nothing about being concerned about liability.

                  Their terms service change simply mentions that they require certain licenses and that they have concern over the licensing of LLM meeting that standard.

                  Event their follow up communication says absolutely nothing of liability.