> "They are so fanatical that many groups are unable to use them."
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.
> They are so fanatical that many groups are unable to use them.
> 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.
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.
A private repo doesn't cost more resources than a public one. The likeliest scenario is the exact opposite - popular public repos generate far more traffic and incur more costs.
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.