For me Github offers the best UI/UX of all public code hosting and collaboration platforms. At work we use Gitlab, which has come a long way. But I „grew up“ with GitHub and find it hard to switch.
Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
71–80 of 131 posts
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#72Simply moving away from Github is not enough to protect your code if you see this as a problem. Moving your code away from Github to some open alternative doesn't stop Github consuming it to use in Copilot unless you specifically forbid that in your license. If you code is freely available to use for any purpose, as many open source licenses permit, then that includes using it as training data for a for-profit produc…
> Simply moving away from Github is not enough to protect your code if you see this as a problem. Moving your code away from Github to some open alternative doesn't stop Github consuming it to use in Copilot unless you specifically forbid that in your license. I mean it does in the short term, because Microsoft trains it on public GitHub code. Beyond that, as long as Microsoft is operating under their “fair use” theo…
Would this still apply if the license explicitly forbids use for AI training?
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
The classic Microsoft move is EEE, I think.
This is the second E. Just wait for the third.
The Extinguish already started to happen. I know more than one person that stopped contributing to FLOSS because they feel it has been turned into unpaid labor for tech corps.
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#74Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copilot being fair use is what Microsoft claims (obviously), not an established fact. There is no precedent for this claim. (Nitpick: Fair use isn't an exemption from copyright, it's a defense for violating copyright)
> Fair use isn't an exemption from copyright, it's a defense for violating copyright My uneducated brain cannot tell the practical difference between them, can you or anyone knowledgeable please explain like I'm 5?
They're not accurate. Or at least not accurate to most jurisdictions that've I've read up on (some countries might be set up that way but I wouldn't know which).
Take UK law, "fair dealing" (I believe it's written as) is specifically stated as "not infringing copyright". Which means it's an allowance or exception, depending on how you want to phrase it. It's not something that is technically in breach and then used as a defence in (for example) court. In fact I don't even know how that kind of law would work in practice.
However since fair use can be a little subjective at times that does mean people are often forced to defend their position that their usage of the source material fell under "fair dealing".
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
People keep getting this wrong. Your license is irrelevant. Copilot depends entirely on being exempt from copyright restrictions (under fair use doctrine), and you cannot restrict this with any license, because they're not using that license. The only way you can stop them using your code so is to not share it with anyone. If they find your code (even via a leak!), they can legally use it, if their fair use claim is…
Correct. Co-pilot is simply operating under the current interpretation of copyright law, which has provisions for fair use which is actually very important for how software development works. Fair use is crucial. Without that we can't implement proprietary APIs or allow ourselves to be inspired by other people's work. The samples of code you get from co-pilot aren't any different from those you find in a book (copyri…
Yes. But I'm under the impression the core issue is GH charging $10 p/m for CoP, not CoP itself. That is, taking what should be free and adding a price tag.
Or maybe I've misread the article?
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#77The thing that worries me here is that supporters of free software wants to strengthen copyright. I would have thought that most were against IP in general or at least in favor of making it weaker. Is protecting your code against Copilot really worth giving this weapon to Disney?
Go create the movie counterpart of Copilot based on Disney material and you'll see how little Disney lawyers need additional "weapons" to sue you to hell and back.
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#78The thing that worries me here is that supporters of free software wants to strengthen copyright. I would have thought that most were against IP in general or at least in favor of making it weaker. Is protecting your code against Copilot really worth giving this weapon to Disney?
Can't speak for others, but I don't want to strengthen copyright at all, I want to strengthen copyleft: anyone should be able to make something like Copilot, but nobody should be allowed to hoard it to themselves and charge money for it. It should just be free.
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#79Ironically I believe GitHub should play a bigger part in OSS. They and a few other platforms have a unique position which could help to make open source software more sustainable: https://dusted.codes/fund-oss-through-package-managers
The option you propose in the article is an interesting one, though not what I'd choose.
Following the idea of "make it as friction-free as possible", something I'd like to be able to do is somehow track my usages of various packages across the course of a month, then divide a set amount of money, say £15, across each of them proportionally. Each project could have whatever amount they "earned" (doesn't seem like the right word, but never mind) automatically donated to them at the end of each month.
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#80The thing that worries me here is that supporters of free software wants to strengthen copyright. I would have thought that most were against IP in general or at least in favor of making it weaker. Is protecting your code against Copilot really worth giving this weapon to Disney?
> free software wants to strengthen copyright. I would have thought that most were against IP in general
That's a misunderstanding.
In a world without any concept of authorship and copyright, people would share, modify and redistribute books, drawing, musical scores...
But most software can be compiled (and even obfuscated), making it unpractical to further modify and redistribute a copy.
This means than in such word closed source would be still present. And freeload from FOSS without even giving attribution.
FOSS is about building a cooperative development model.
Copyleft is based on copyright laws simply because there's no other legal instrument to ensure that software remains open.