Codeberg - Non-Profit Git Hosting That Doesn't Sell Your Data

Microsoft bought GitHub in 2018 for $7.5 billion. Since then, they've been training Copilot on your code, whether you like it or not. Codeberg exists because some developers got fed up with that bullshit.

It's Actually Non-Profit (No, Really)

Codeberg e.V. is a registered German non-profit with around 600 paying members who vote on decisions. No venture capital, no ads, no data harvesting. They own their servers in Berlin instead of renting from AWS like everyone else.

The membership fee is €42/year if you want voting rights, but using the platform is completely free for open source projects. They make it work because German non-profits get tax benefits and the hosting costs aren't insane when you're not trying to maximize shareholder value.

Technical Reality Check

Codeberg runs Forgejo, which forked from Gitea in October 2022 when Gitea started going corporate. Forgejo development is backed by Codeberg itself, so they have skin in the game. They're running Forgejo v12 with regular updates. Works fine, no major version drama.

The interface looks exactly like GitHub because Gitea copied GitHub's UI, and Forgejo inherited that. Migration from GitHub takes about 5 minutes per repository if you're not hitting rate limits. I moved 50 repos last month - worked fine, except for some webhook quirks.

They've got around 100k+ users and projects. Growing steadily but not massive. Around 600 paying members by now, which is enough to keep the lights on.

What Actually Makes It Different

No AI training on your code. GitHub's Terms of Service lets them use your public repos for machine learning. Codeberg's Terms explicitly don't.

GDPR compliance by default. Hosted in Germany, follows EU data protection laws. Your IP logs get deleted, they don't track you across sites.

Community governance. When GitHub changes something you hate, tough shit. When Codeberg does something stupid, members can vote to fix it. Democracy is messy but better than corporate decisions.

The tradeoff? Smaller ecosystem means fewer integrations. No Dependabot equivalent. CI options are limited to Woodpecker CI (decent) or Forgejo Actions (still alpha). If you need enterprise features or 24/7 phone support, stick with GitHub.

That said, major projects are starting to take notice. In 2025, GNU Guix migrated their entire development workflow to Codeberg after a collective consensus-building process. This signals growing confidence in the platform's stability and governance model.

Useful resources for getting started:

• Getting Started Guide - official onboarding docs
• First Repository Tutorial - creating your first repo
• Migration Guide - moving from other platforms
• Codeberg Blog - platform updates and governance decisions
• Community Issues - report problems or request features
• Terms of Service - usage policies and guidelines
• Privacy Policy - data handling and GDPR compliance
• Membership Information - supporting the organization

Git Hosting That Just Works

The basic Git stuff works exactly like GitHub. Push code, create branches, merge PRs. Private repos are limited to 100MB for open source contributors - if you need proprietary hosting, use GitHub.

What works well:

• Git operations are fast (Berlin servers, decent bandwidth)
• Web interface for small edits (don't expect VS Code integration)
• Release uploads work fine (attached binaries, release notes)
• Git LFS handles large files up to your quota
• Repository mirroring exists but you set it up manually

Pain points:

• Repository stats are basic compared to GitHub's insights (no traffic graphs, contributor analytics are shit)
• No automated security scanning or dependency alerts (you'll miss that Dependabot nagging)
• Mirror setup is clunky - expect 30 minutes of RTFM and cursing at webhook configurations

Issues and Project Management

Issue tracker works fine for basic project management. No Jira-level complexity, which is either a feature or bug depending on your team.

Decent features:

• Issue templates keep bug reports consistent
• Labels and milestones for basic organization
• Cross-repository linking (handy for related projects)
• Markdown support doesn't suck

Missing stuff:

• No project boards like GitHub Projects
• No time tracking or advanced reporting
• No integration with external project management tools

Pull Requests - The Good and Ugly

PR workflow is solid. Code review features work as expected, though don't expect GitHub-level polish.

Works well:

• Inline comments on specific lines
• Review approval blocking (enforce code review)
• Draft PRs for work-in-progress collaboration
• Merge conflict detection

Annoying quirks:

• Status checks from CI sometimes don't show up immediately (takes 5 minutes sometimes, no idea why)
• No automated PR templates based on branch patterns (you copy-paste the same template every time)
• Review suggestions (like GitHub's) don't exist (back to commenting "change this to X")

CI/CD - Limited But Functional

Two CI options, both with tradeoffs:

Woodpecker CI - The Reliable Choice

Woodpecker CI is mature and works. YAML config, Docker-based builds, gets the job done for most projects.

Pros:

• Actually stable (been using it for 2 years without major fuckups)
• Good Docker support - runs containers without weird permission issues
• Matrix builds work fine for testing Node 16/18/20
• Secret management that doesn't accidentally commit credentials to your repo

Cons:

• Smaller ecosystem than GitHub Actions (no Slack/Discord actions marketplace)
• Need to apply for access on Codeberg (took me 3 days to get approved)
• Learning curve if you're coming from GitHub Actions (YAML is different enough to be annoying)

Forgejo Actions - GitHub Actions Clone

Forgejo Actions tries to be compatible with GitHub Actions. Still alpha, so expect rough edges.

Current state:

• Basic workflows work
• Self-hosted runners required for anything serious
• Hosted runners are limited and sometimes disappear
• Many GitHub Actions work, but not all

Reality check: If you depend on CI for production deployments, stick with Woodpecker or keep using GitHub Actions. Forgejo Actions broke on me twice last month - lost 3 hours debugging workflows that just vanished.

Infrastructure improvements: They finally upgraded from their single server that somehow handled tens of thousands of users without melting down. Now it's a proper cluster setup with Ceph storage that doesn't shit the bed under load.

Documentation Wiki

Git-based wiki that's fine for basic documentation. Nothing fancy, just markdown files that get versioned.

Good enough for:

• API documentation
• Setup instructions
• Project guidelines

Don't expect:

• Real-time collaboration
• Advanced formatting options
• Integration with documentation generators

Technical resources and documentation:

• Advanced Repository Features - LFS, hooks, and more
• Codeberg Pages Setup - static site hosting
• Package Registry Guide - Docker, npm, Maven packages
• CI/CD Documentation - Woodpecker and Forgejo Actions
• API Documentation (available at /api/swagger) - programmatic access to repositories and issues
• Git LFS Documentation - large file storage
• Repository Mirroring - sync with other platforms
• Forgejo Self-Hosting Guide - run your own instance
• Woodpecker CI Setup - self-hosted CI configuration
• Status Page - service availability and incidents

Codeberg Pages - Free Static Hosting

Codeberg Pages works exactly like GitHub Pages but without the Microsoft surveillance. Push to a repo, get a website. Custom domains work fine with automatic SSL.

What works:

• Static site generators (Hugo, Jekyll, whatever)
• Custom domains with proper SSL certificates
• No tracking pixels or analytics injection
• Actually hosted in Europe

What's annoying:

• Build times can be slower than GitHub Pages
• Limited to static sites (obviously)
• No Jekyll plugins beyond the standard set

Translation Service - If You Need It

Codeberg Translate runs Weblate for translating open source projects. Works fine if you need collaborative translation without self-hosting Weblate.

I've used it for a couple projects - the interface is decent, translations commit directly to your repo via Git, and it has reasonable quality checks. Not amazing, but saves the hassle of running your own Weblate instance.

Package Registry - Actually Decent

Package hosting for Docker, npm, Maven, Python packages. Works better than I expected:

Docker registry: Push images like any other registry. docker push codeberg.org/yourname/yourproject just works.

npm packages: npm publish to Codeberg works fine. Saved me money on private npm packages.

Python/Maven: Standard package hosting, nothing fancy but functional.

Integration with CI is straightforward - publish packages automatically on tags.

Migration - The Sunday Project

Moving from GitHub takes about 30 minutes per repository. The migration tool handles:

• Code, issues, PRs, releases, wikis
• Labels, milestones, most metadata
• Works from GitHub, GitLab, other Gitea instances

What breaks:

• Webhooks (you'll reconfigure them manually)
• GitHub Actions workflows (obviously)
• Third-party integrations

I migrated 50 repos in a weekend. Took me most of Saturday because I hit webhook issues I'm still figuring out. The migration docs are actually helpful, unlike the usual vendor bullshit.

API - If You're Into That

REST API with Swagger docs available at /api/swagger on any Codeberg instance. Works like the Gitea API since that's what it is.

Useful for:

• Automation scripts
• Third-party integrations
• Repository management
• Webhooks for CI/CD

Personal access tokens work as expected for authentication. OAuth apps work if you're building integrations.

Additional resources:

• Pages Documentation - static site hosting setup
• Package Registry Guide - publishing packages
• Translation Platform - Weblate integration
• Migration Tools - platform migration guides
• API Reference (at /api/swagger endpoint) - complete API documentation
• Webhook Setup - external integrations
• OAuth Applications - third-party app development