Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same

#91

Post by dento »

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #26
lapser wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone else has said, the alternative isn't to move away from GH (at least not for this specific issue). The alternative is to change your license to not allow for this.

If you change your license to exclude this particular use, it's no longer Open Source (no restrictions on how it's used). If you change your license to forbid removing the license, then there's a good chance that it doesn't hold any legal power. Reason being that machine processing is allowed by copyright laws.

> If you change your license to forbid removing the license, then there's a good chance that it doesn't hold any legal power.

But almost all licenses already do that, for example the MIT license says:

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same

#93

Post by nine_k »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #76
jillesvangurp wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Charging money for GPL'd software is explicitly allowed [1].

I suppose this is how e.g. Red Hat operates.

[1]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same

#94

Post by amelius »

blueflow wrote: post #37
amelius wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? What if someone else claims they wrote your code and slaps a license on it?

When its my IP i can enforce it, send them a DMCA or sue them for damages. They used my stuff without having a license to do so. If they slapped an own license on it, granting others permission to it, that would increase the damages.

Ok, but you'd have to prove it.

Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same

#97

Post by chiefalchemist »

nine_k wrote: post #93
chiefalchemist wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Charging money for GPL'd software is explicitly allowed [1]. I suppose this is how e.g. Red Hat operates. [1]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

So then what exactly is the article objecting to? Sorry, I musta missed something.

Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same

#99

Post by madmulita »

pjmlp wrote: post #92

Copilot is no different from any company taking advantage of non-copyleft licenses . If you have a problem with that, learn to pick your licenses properly.

Haven't seen anything showing non-copyleft licensed code not being used, only their word for it.

Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same

#100

Post by wiz21c »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #52
chrismorgan wrote: post #32

Earlier 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…

As a GPL code auhtor, I gave anybody the right to use my code as a complete program or to build derivative programs that have a strong tie with my original code (derivative work).

I didn't envision that my code would be split into tons of little code snippets and then sold around. Doing so, the spirit of the GPL-isation of my software has been betrayed.

There's also a free flow of information argument. Citing pieces of my code is good for that flow. But MSFT doesn't seek free flow here, it seeks a money-making flow. So I disagree.

I understand your explanation and somehow, it sounds right on the pragmatic level. But on the idealistic level, it sounds wrong :-/

Dunno...

Post reply on HN