Not quite: Codeberg discourages you from having too many closed source projects, but you can absolutely have private repositories. I have several.

They explain the rules here: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/#how-about-pri...

How much they tolerate private projects and the specific rule you link is so vague it's worthless.

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.

Worthless _to you_. Given that it's a free service, I think it's perfectly reasonable that they only want to host Free software. There are any number of other tools catering to businesses.

It was a reply to the comment. My original comment merely stated the fact and that I use something else.

I'm saying vague promises are worthless, not the service if you do 100% FOSS.

> I want 100% certainty

this is completely unrealistic even if you're paying a company to host your stuff

It's not. If the terms of use unambiguously allow it, the law is on your side no matter what the host tries.

there's no law, it's a contract

you can be sued by anyone for anything at any time, regardless of your opinion of "unambiguous"

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

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 being intentionally obtuse?

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

all the usual arguments. I get where he's coming from, I thought like this for a long time as well. I wouldn't pride myself in having sold all my bitcoins in 2016. I regret having dabbled in stuff like ethereum around that time when I could've just stuck with bitcoin. I just didn't see it. conflating the nft/dao/web3/shitcoin sphere with bitcoin vibe with me either. good luck to him with paper money, I'm going with bitcoin, come what will. I'm not on a mission, do what feels right. I'm not judging. just weirded out by the thought of someone not wanting OSS software of that sort to be hosted on their platform. where does it end? ban users who are active in that area outside of your platform? people are using postgres unethically to store illegal data, stolen pii and credit cards. tor is used for csam. I have difficulties understanding this line of thinking and it feels more like an ethical way to exclude a group of people you just don't like. could be totally wrong of course.

This is a strange and random comment.

That would be it. It's why I started with BitBucket. Because Github didn't allow for private repositories on the free tier at the time.

Wait really? is that the case, I didn't know that!

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