No, it was just against every value Codeberg ever stood for, and against the value humanity should stand for. There was no ambiguity ever about this. There is no moral ambiguity that if people develop military FLOSS on codeberg they will be banned, even though it's not in the ToS right now, because that's the right thing to do and the community will reach a consensus that we want to support human communities, not military organisations who destroy them.
The rules say nothing about military AI and currently include selfhosted LLMs as well:
> You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).
At least stick with the truth before launching with "the right the to do" (which is also a pretty bad rule because it's completely ambiguous.)
I'm fine with ambiguous rules. A non-profit is not a legislative body, though to be fair even actual laws are usually ambiguous and contradictory and that's why we have lawyers and judges and such.
Ambiguous rules with clear objectives is what gives a non-profit the power to be flexible in the way to accomplish common goals. It's based on human trust and is fine by me and others. If you ever were part of a non-profit, you know human trust is an essential component.
