71–80 of 585 posts
if you move everything to gitlab/self-hosted there's nothing stopping them spending 5 minutes querying the bing index and feeding it every repo they find
Does Github give users a toggle to opt-out of being in the copilot training dataset? I feel like that would be a decent compromise for folks not down with their code being used in copilot.
I should not have to opt out. GitHub should have to respect my license. I already said they can use my code, as long as they keep an attribution intact (via a BSD license, for example) GitHub is taking my code and ignoring the license. I don’t understand why anyone would think that is ok.
The impetus for the post is apparently "co-pilot" being a commercial service. I have no dog in this fight, just giving an overview of their main argument.
The main point is that it's a commercial service that doesn't respect other people's licences. Previously it was free and the noises that GitHub had given made it sound like it wasn't finished. Turns out it was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to teach a coding bootcamp. I had over 100 students over about 2 years, and ran into this constantly despite my best effort to explain that git != github from day one. We even did an exercise where we just used git locally first and then later (on a different day) showed how you can push to github. It didn't seem to matter. People just decided that git = github and couldn't let go of that.
git --> github porn --> pornhub best explanation of github for noobs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main point is that it's a commercial service that doesn't respect other people's licences. Previously it was free and the noises that GitHub had given made it sound like it wasn't finished. Turns out it was.
It seems like a legal grey area because for the most part what CoPilot is doing seems like it should be a transformative use [1] and you don't need a license for that. But apparently sometimes CoPilot will spit out other people's code verbatim, so I wouldn't use it. Not worth the risk. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use
You don't know me, but it's totally fine to drink this this mysterious blue liquid. I pinky promise it isn't toilet cleaner.
> For its part, Git was designed specifically to make software development distributed without a centralized site. Just yesterday I had to explain the basic premise/history of Git to a young intern. I had asked him if he was using Git to manage his little pet project the company gave him to play with. “No”, he replied, he didn’t know what the company’s policy was to posting code in public on GitHub. As I explained to…
Why is it baffling? GitHub and GitLab have embraced and extended git so much that it is no longer independently visible to most users. If you didn't already know git was independent of the SaaS products, you'd have no reason to suspect it was independent.
The impetus for the post is apparently "co-pilot" being a commercial service. I have no dog in this fight, just giving an overview of their main argument.
The main point is that it's a commercial service that doesn't respect other people's licences. Previously it was free and the noises that GitHub had given made it sound like it wasn't finished. Turns out it was.
GitHub is a business and currently provides free storage and a pretty nice interface to it. It’s easy to say “our rights are being stripped away” but the view that businesses should operate like non profits or government services with the common good in mind is ludicrous!
These are the immediate "products" GitHub provides, however, I would argue it provides a lot more. GitHub provides a place for people to easily collaborate on FOSS software. It has helped millions of people getting into software development or into their first FOSS project by lowering the barrier of entry significantly. Can you imagine how many people would start contributing to FOSS early in their career if they had…