Codeberg Reaches 300k Projects
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
codeberg.orgTechstoryHigh profile
supportivepositive
Debate
40/100
CodebergGithubForgejoOpen-Source
Key topics
Codeberg
Github
Forgejo
Open-Source
Codeberg reaches 300k projects, sparking discussion about its advantages over GitHub and the role of decentralized version control.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
25m
Peak period
61
0-6h
Avg / period
14.3
Comment distribution86 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 86 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 1, 2025 at 12:48 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 1, 2025 at 1:13 PM EDT
25m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
61 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 5, 2025 at 2:15 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45439955Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 7:45:36 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Codeberg might be getting more popular, but the slope of growth from Github is way higher than theirs.
Is Codeberg actually effective at preventing crawling of public code they host?
https://docs.codeberg.org/ci/
None of this is a defence of GitHub. But if you want to enact change, you have to understand the reasons why people remain in the status quo.
it's really easy because the codeberg importer is really good
it correctly imports all your pull requests and issues, preserving usernames, everything
you then put the new URL in the GitHub description and archive the project
and then a year down the line you delete the GitHub repository entirely
I moved about 70 projects, half a dozen with several hundred stars and forks
and each major project that leaves does n^2 damage to GitHub, it's the network effect in reverse!
Is it really free, though? You get free service - MS gets everyone's code for free. Only a fool would believe that they don't use private repos for training.
And even if it was free, do you really believe it is sustainable to just offer unlimited service for free to anyone? They've created an environment where you're punished for using anything but github. This is not good.
You don't need to convince me, you need to convince the millions of people who prefer the convenience of "Free as in Beer SaaS" over the resilience and self-sufficiency that we get by hosting our own systems.
Personally I use Gitlab.
They explain the rules here: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/#how-about-pri...
I want 100% certainty that if my side project makes money they're not going to come after me for breaking terms. Anything less is worthless.
this is completely unrealistic even if you're paying a company to host your stuff
you can be sued by anyone for anything at any time, regardless of your opinion of "unambiguous"
Yes, lawsuits are how contract disputes are settled. "The law is on your side" means a court will side with you in case of a lawsuit.
are you?
need I remind you, you said:
> I want 100% certainty that if my side project makes money they're not going to come after me
there is NEVER any certainty that your counterparty won't come after you, even if you think your contract is "unambiguous"
because that not how the system works
I'm saying vague promises are worthless, not the service if you do 100% FOSS.
I actually went and found the source as I wanted to ask you but I felt like HN police might come saying to give a google search so I am going to paste it here to save someone else a google search but also here is the main thing
> Our mission is to support the creation and development of Free Software; therefore we only allow repos licensed under an OSI/FSF-approved license. For more details see Licensing article. However, we sometimes tolerate repositories that aren't perfectly licensed and focus on spreading awareness on the topic of improper FLOSS licensing and its issues.
https://codeberg.org/magicfelix/Codeberg-Documentation/src/b...
Funny thing is that I found this through by copying the statement from the hackernews comment and I was only able to find this through HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35480056
Others have issue with their code being used in AI training, but I find no issue in that myself, my code is not exclusively mine anyway and I have no say in how it is being used.
I have several projects I’d want to move over but thats enough of a barrier for me to lose interest. There’s also Forgejo Actions but I assume paying for your own runner is probably more expensive than GitHub.
Codeberg has free Forgejo Actions instance that you can use without a request, but with limited resources[1]:
> own runner is probably more expensive than GitHub
You can rent a VPS for as cheap as $15/year or run it locally.
[1] https://codeberg.org/actions/meta
However I would not trust external contributors' code on my server.
Codeberg is a community driven project, which provides CI for FOSS projects, and it's a bit unfair to expect them to provide free compute for random and/or private projects.
For what it's worth, I've had better experience with running self-hosted Forgejo Actions runners compared to self-hosted Github Actions runners.
Also: GitHub is so established that for many people git and GitHub are the same thing.
If a person really cares about your project and wants to improve it and not just boost their own GH stats - creating an account takes no time or they can always send you patches via email.
They are so fanatical that many groups are unable to use them.
Sourcehut for example is hostile towards cryptocurrency related projects.
Coderberg is hostile towards private repos.
I pay for Sourcehut hosting. I like that I'm on a system which rejects cryptocurrency projects.
See also the 248 comments at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26943408 from when that came out 4 years ago.
Or in pop culture terms, I would reject a FOSS version of the Torment Nexus too.
Get real. It's a community project with limited resources. If they had the money for hosting I'm sure that would be offered for FOSS projects, which their bylaws requires to focus on.
> Coderberg is hostile towards private repos.
Disclaimer: I'm a member of Codeberg e.V., though not part of the presidium or any official representative position.
We're a non-profit (charitable) with the explicit goal of being host to free and open source projects. We run on donations, donations that are made with that specific goal. Why should we provide storage and git hosting for proprietary projects? That is not and has not been the goal of the entire organization. Yeah, I guess that makes us unusable to many groups, technically. But Codeberg was founded for that specific purpose, after all we're a nonprofit, not a business.
If you want to host proprietary projects, Codeberg isn't the place for it and it doesn't want to be.
Also, no you won't be immediately banned if you make 3 private repositories. I myself have a few private repos, mostly projects that never got anywhere close to finished but also personal notes or my nginx server config.
https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/#before-i-star...
I had open-sourced stuff there licensed under Creative Commons, which was forcibly removed. They do spell the license requirements out in their terms, I just can't wrap my head around the obstinacy. Calling it unhelpful do-goodery would be flattering. Fanatical is indeed the right word.
That said, what can codeberg really protect against if they’re just a European take on GitHub?
The idea that I would choose a company because is from Europe instead of America, is kinda insane to be honest, I'm from Spain, Europe and my only peeve with products from America is that sometimes the cost to send products here is a bit too much for products like kinesis, aeron, books from nostarch, etc.
Good for Codeberg for giving the hosting service for free to FOSS projects, but there is no way I'm giving so much power to a few volunteers over my projects.
I wish GitHub would implement a feature to hide/private the projects I follow/star, that's the only thing I miss in GitHub.
I really created a github account to star other people's project and my keepassxc had got deleted by me messing around in my linux so I had lost access to my codeberg previous account and I think even my previous github account too but I went around to create a new github account but never a new codeberg account untill just recently (literally 1 hour ago lol)
for me I could star a lot of projects and show support and there is even github donations. Its not as if I like github but I am giving my reasoning as to why I think the reason is that github won and codeberg hadn't.
There are still a lot of people which use codeberg but a lack of awareness is also one part and the lack of people on codeberg. To me, like, I thought that if my project is on codeberg then it would get less stars (I was really chasing stars back then lol) and it would get less visibility and less people contributing and so on I think...
Doesn't also help when you need a github account anyways to contribute to a git project in the sense that you ask them an issue.
IIRC I wanted to ask a github issue on some project and that's why I had created my original account but then started hosting some code between codeberg and github from exclusively codeberg to then all code on github...
Now I am starting to take back on that by hosting things on codeberg again from a fresh account.
Aside from previously established dominance and associated network effects, a whole lot of individually little things which add up to a lot.
> It's a shame this isn't as popular. It seems like developers, of all people, are willingly letting their code be AI piggybacked.
So long as the AI firms operate under the assumption (and courts so far in the US at least seem inclined to favor this view) that training AI on copyright-protected material isn't infringement, any publicly-exposed code is going to be subject to AI piggybacking, not just code hosted on Github.
[1] https://forgefed.org/
https://codeberg.org/ForgeFed/ForgeFed
The README in both repos links to the main Codeberg repo and says that the GitHub repo is a mirror.
GP's snark is misplaced, version control is but a subset of what forges offer, git has no social layer[1], and GitHub has a monopoly on this. A distributed social layer via ActivityPub would be a vast improvement over what we have now - at best, non-comprehensive one way synching of issues from GitHub into mirror repos, by way of polling the upstream.
1. Except via email
Also: Ask yourself why did Linus "solve" VC decentralization, but not social software decentralization. Probably because one is "easy" and the other is "not obviously possible". :)
Perhaps because it was out of scope? Linux kernel diffs are emailed, so Linus solved for email as the social layer, and it works well with mailing lists. If Pull Requests had predated git and the kernel had used them, Linus would have solved for
I run a Gitea server (since long before the fork, constantly updated) that handles issues, pull requests, signed commits, CI/CD, actions, and even serves my containers and packages. It's been amazing.
Of course Forgejo can do the same. For those who’ve followed both projects closely — which fork would you say has come out ahead? Codeberg being Forgejo's SaaS offering likely gives them more resources, but I also wonder if that means their priorities lean more toward SaaS than self-hosting.
It was FUD when the fork was announced, it is FUD now. Look at commercial images and what differentiates them from MIT — it's pretty much just SAML and not much else. Their actual development policy is "you pay us for the feature you need — we build it under MIT and ship for everyone"; their collaboration with Blender is the most prominent example of this that I know of.
I've also been wondering whether to jump ship, and have been going by comparing release notes — how many features were shipped within the same period of time, which bugs were fixed, etc. I've seen no reason to migrate, Gitea continues to advance faster, even though Forgejo copies some of their commits that still apply relatively easily.
Forget about commit counts, issues closed, and other artificial metrics — they're significantly inflated on Forgejo's side by heavy use of bots (like bumping dependencies) and merge commits (which Gitea development process doesn't use). Look at release notes.
the interface is far more responsive, despite each click loading a new page (vs. the disaster than is react)
and it is run by a charity, so it will never enshittify
which GitHub is doing more and more with each passing day (no I don't want your shit "AI", not now, not ever)
1 more comments available on Hacker News