For me, and a few other projects I checked, it only has non-GPL repos. But it also does not have everything that isn't GPL, despite the repos being much older than the cut-off date. But it does have repos without a license, which they are simply not allowed to copy.

I wonder if those repos have been deduplicated, and one of the forks (on some other person's account) is included instead. Unfortunately you can only search the first 5M records via the website, and I don't have time to play around with the API at the moment, so I could neither confirm nor deny that possibility

If nobody owns the code, then then nobody can enforce the terms of the license it was released under, and free software under the FSF definition becomes impossible. All you have is public domain.

For example, a company could take the Linux kernel, modify it and distribute it with their gadgets. And they could simply not release the modifications they've made, as is required by the GNU Public License. But nobody would be able to do anything about it. Currently, copyright laws allow the people who wrote the Linux kernel to sue the company for breaking the license and violating the authors' copyrights

Neither of those terms seem problematic to me; a plain reading would be "mostly" means more than half of the code, and "tolerated" would mean that the ban is not enforced on such projects. Of course, if you are already operating under the assumption that Codeberg is acting in bad faith, then it doesn't matter what the terms of service says nor how they they might say that they interpret them.

It is, however, not surprising that their terms of service are subject to interpretation. That was already the case before they added these particular terms. For example, the Codeberg TOS already included a prohibition against "content that harms the reputation of Codeberg" before the recent changes. Codeberg simply added projects related to cryptocurrency as an example, when the ban was voted through. It is furthermore the case that most, if not all, terms of service are subject to interpretation. We are talking about documents describing human behavior, not machine code.

If this kind of thing is not acceptable to you, then your only real solution is to self-host

Banning "AI" is too broad and too shortsighted.

They haven't done that. The actual terms are

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).

See also their blog post, where they specifically mentions experiments as "tolerated":

Side projects and experiments with little resource usage

I'm well aware how short 100ms really is and it is very obvious if your inputs are off by 100ms or more; rhythm games are rarely that strict, but I've also played games where some inputs had to be timed to within 1/60th of a second (~16.7ms)

But the results… calling something “bad” for 3ms of latency is a bit ridiculous. That’s only significant to a cat, to us larger meat sacks 100ms would be blazing fast reaction speed, making 3ms negligible. For an average person it means even less.

You are conflating reaction time and response time. They are very different things.

Yes, your reaction time is in the 100s of miliseconds, but it doesn't take much of a delay in the response to your reaction before it becomes perceivable, and the response time is what was measured here.

If you have ever played rhythm games, then you may be aware that some of them have settings that allow you to offset the delay, such that your pressing a button at the exact same time as the note plays is also registered as happening at that time, even though it took some additional time for the input to reach the game. Without such a setting, you intentionally have to press buttons early (how much depends on your setup) to ensure that your input registers at the right time. A delay of 100ms would be extremely obvious

The Windows installer partition manager also does not ask for confirmation before formatting a drive. That was a costly misclick

It's more likely that both are derived from ColorADD, but the idea is also simple enough, conceptually, that they all could have thought of it independently.

Getting it wrong: Red should be the Chevron as a metaphor for fire, Yellow should be Circle as a metaphor for Sun, Blue should be line as a metaphor for the sky + horizon.

The problem with requiring that your symbols are metaphors for things is that those things may not relate to the context in which you are using the symbols. At which point it just adds confusion to say that the yellow symbol represents the sun.

Additionally, people are never going to agree on what should represent what, as you yourself demonstrate; the author explicitly rejects that the blue symbol should be the metaphor for sky, yet for you it apparently felt like the best choice:

For blue, there are two obvious choices. The sky and the water. Water makes a more practical choice since the sky is inherently formless, and therefore quite difficult to represent symbolically.

Past me understood my codebase. Present me wonders what the hell that guy was thinking

Let me remind you that you wrote that,

People complain at something not working are missing the point.

It’s open source. You spot something you don’t like, change it.

Learn to code, contribute, fix things.

There is very little stopping you.

Do you think that you can fix something not working by writing documentation? Or do you think that you can fix something not working by testing? Or do you think that you can fix something not working by investing in visual elements? And so on and so forth.

No. Obviously not. If you want to fix something not working, then you have to get your hands dirty with the source code

Time investment is a barrier to entry.

I say this as somebody who has already made the time investment required to learn how to program, and as somebody who keeps investing time to maintain and to improve their skills in that area. Expecting the average Linux user to do the same is ridiculous.

Have you made that investment?

Yes. Firstly because no distro has everything in their respositores, and secondly because different package managers serve different purposes.

The closest to an all-encompassing package manager is perhaps Arch with AUR, though you are forced to use tools beyond pacman if you want actual package management for the AUR packages. AUR has also shown itself to be a massive liability, since the only way the project has been able to cover as much software as it does, is by doing next to no vetting of the submitted packages. With predictable results