Bilingual

Ruby Central's Destructive Legacy
4 hours ago
- Ruby Central's controversial takeover of Bundler and RubyGems projects led to the loss of conferences, contributors, staff, and sponsors.
- The dispute remains unresolved, with Ruby Central threatening legal action and reporting the author to the FBI without evidence of harm.
- Ruby Central has not apologized or explained its actions, refusing to acknowledge the destruction caused to the community and projects.
- The author offers a settlement requiring an apology and reimbursement of legal fees, but Ruby Central demands a one-sided non-disparagement clause.
- The Ruby community is encouraged to build new open, community-governed tools and organizations to move forward.
Debian launches competing General Resolutions on LLM usage in Debian code
7 days ago
- Debian is considering two proposals regarding LLM usage in contributions: Proposal A forbids all LLM-assisted contributions, while Proposal B allows them under strict conditions.
- Proposal A raises concerns about copyright clarity, quality, community health, and ethics of LLM companies, suggesting an addition to the Social Contract to ban such contributions.
- Proposal B permits AI-assisted contributions with conditions like legal compliance, disclosure, accountability, and prior discussion for bulk changes.
- Both proposals acknowledge enforcement challenges but differ in approach: Proposal A stresses prohibition, while Proposal B emphasizes guidelines and contributor responsibility.
Codeberg Divides
7 days ago
- Codeberg updated its terms to exclude projects mostly written with generative AI, which the author views as within its rights but not necessarily wise or inclusive.
- Democracy in infrastructure does not guarantee predictability or neutrality; a democratic provider without a clear constitution may be less reliable than a corporation.
- The term 'mostly' in the policy is ambiguous and hard to enforce, making it difficult to determine authorship percentages in active codebases.
- A clearer rule—either banning all LLM involvement or addressing spam and resource abuse directly—would be preferable to the current middle ground.
- The open source community is deeply divided over LLMs and agents, yet these tools are becoming integral to software development and need constructive engagement.
- The author wishes Codeberg were more forward-looking, aiming to host future open source software rather than only software made in currently approved ways.

Hasty Briefsbeta

open source governance

Ruby Central's Destructive Legacy

Debian launches competing General Resolutions on LLM usage in Debian code

Codeberg Divides