What's a good alternative? Preferably not in the US, preferably not biased towards (or against) any political agenda.
You don't need hosting to use git.
Versioning the source code is just one of the many things people use GitHub for.
Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
111–120 of 131 posts
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#112Ironically 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…
This would make js module writers disproportionately rich vs the people doing the hard work that makes their 1 line module run.
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#113Earlier 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…
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…
It's right in the legal sense. Until someone with a smart lawyer proves it wrong in a court and gets the judge to agree. Ideology does not factor into the interpretation of the law by judges in court cases. Only in the making of the law (by politicians).
On balance, you are distributing software that is copyrighted (nothing you can do about that). The GPL gives users some limited permissions that undo some of the restrictions that come with copyright. Fair use applies to copyrighted material regardless of the license and is not something you can actually restrict with a license. That kind of is the whole point of fair use. So, the GPL, it's (supposed) intentions, and idealism don't factor into the equation here. That's just not how it works.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitHub appears to be relying on a fair-use defense for Copilot. So it doesn't matter what license you slap on the code; if they're correct that their use constitutes fair use, as long as they can see your code, they can use it.
You could slap some kind of a clause in your license that forbids the use of your code in conjunction with an AI-powered code tool, and then try to sue people who use Copilot. Microsoft's claim is after all that training Copilot is fair use. Although if you find your code in a project even without such a clause, you can probably still attempt to sue them for copyright violation, since most likely they are not abiding…
No, fair use means that you can copy the code without agreeing to any license. It doesn't matter what clause you add. That's the whole point of fair use.
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#115Copilot 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.
Just like most cloud first startups.
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could slap some kind of a clause in your license that forbids the use of your code in conjunction with an AI-powered code tool, and then try to sue people who use Copilot. Microsoft's claim is after all that training Copilot is fair use. Although if you find your code in a project even without such a clause, you can probably still attempt to sue them for copyright violation, since most likely they are not abiding…
No, fair use means that you can copy the code without agreeing to any license. It doesn't matter what clause you add. That's the whole point of fair use.
Copying code that you don't own into your own project isn't fair use.
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#117Simply 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…
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…
"if their fair use claim is correct"
That clause is doing a lot of work here. You seem to be starting with an assumption that their claim is correct, but it's kind of a ridiculous assumption. Here are the usual categories of fair use, according to the US copyright office.
"criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research"
Which of these do you think describes Copilot? I say none. I also suspect that most people and most courts would say none. I don't think "arbitrary incorporation into other works without attribution" fits even a generous definition of fair use. Some might even recognize it as a definition of plagiarism. Can you make your case instead of assuming it?
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, but you'd have to prove it.
For git repos, include the current revision of your master branch as metadata to an SEPA transaction. This is a legal solid proof that you had code at time X.
Interesting. Has anyone automated this?
It reminds me of:
However, it does not prove that your version of the repository was the first and original one.
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
For git repos, include the current revision of your master branch as metadata to an SEPA transaction. This is a legal solid proof that you had code at time X.
Interesting. Has anyone automated this? It reminds me of: https://notary.bitcoin.com/ However, it does not prove that your version of the repository was the first and original one.
I consider the SEPA tagging a secondary method. If someone was to contest the authorship of my code, i'd challenge them to explain why certain passages were written in that way. Or how specific magic numbers were picked. Linus for example used the birth date of his daughters as magic numbers for the reboot() syscall.
Generally i do recommend to avoid cryptocurrencies for anything serious. Its public image is beyond repair.
Re: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It's right in the legal sense. Until someone with a smart lawyer proves it wrong in a court and gets the judge to agree. Ideology does not factor into the interpretation of the law by judges in court cases. Only in the making of the law (by politicians). On balance, you are distributing software that is copyrighted (nothing you can do about that). The GPL gives users some limited permissions that undo some of the res…
> Ideology does not factor into the interpretation of the law by judges in court cases
It certainly does. That's one big reason why judges often disagree and judges' rulings can often be predicted by which party appointed them.
But the copyleft ideology in particular rarely factors into court cases, because few judges care about it.