Skip to content
Tech News
← Back to articles

Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

read original more articles
Why This Matters

This article highlights how the Codeberg community is actively protecting the integrity of the free/libre software ecosystem by refusing to use user data for training Large Language Models (LLMs). These decisions underscore the growing concern over AI technologies' impact on open source values and the importance of safeguarding user privacy and project independence. Such initiatives set a precedent for other organizations to prioritize ethical AI use and community-driven policies in the tech industry.

Key Takeaways

Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs Bastian Greshake Tzovaras, Otto Richter, William Zijl Thu 23 July 2026

In Brief:

Two motions regarding "artificial intelligence" and Large Language Models (LLMs) were voted on among Codeberg e. V. members and passed.

We are promising to not use any of your data to train LLM and explain what the planned Terms of Use change mean for 'vibe-coded' projects.

We believe that LLMs endanger the free/libre software ecosystem as a whole.

The Codeberg e. V. annual assembly is the meeting that puts power into the hand of our active members. Proposals are discussed live, and later voted on asynchronously.

Since Large Language Models (LLMs) are an emerging but controversial technology, it is not surprising that two of the votes were concerned with Codeberg's position about this technology. The 14-day voting period ended yesterday and both proposals were accepted.

The first vote was a statement about Codeberg e. V.'s stance on using your data to train LLMs.

As stated in our privacy policy, "We do not want to need your data", and this also holds for the use of our user and project data for using or training generative "AI": The Codeberg forge and its associated services are not and will not use the code or data of projects and users to train "Artificial Intelligence" tools such as Large Language Models, whose purpose is to create output modelled after their training input. As an association, we believe that these technologies are incompatible with responsibly creating and maintaining free & open source software.

The second vote was more controversial, but was also accepted with 358 agreements vs 144 disagreements (and 14 abstentions), with a high voter turn-out of around 50% of active members. It implies a change to our terms of use to prohibit 'vibe-coded projects'. We'll share thoughts about the practical impact at the end of the article.

... continue reading