Give up GitHub: The time has come

Yes, sure, that could be one useful strategy.

But no, you can't demand it as some kind of mandatory component for a project to "count as a real FOSS project".

And for git, especially... It's not as if an easy-to-use interface had ever been a priority there. ;-) What one could ask for from them, though, IMO, would be a website of their own where they at least explain what it is. Because if such a thing exists, I must have missed it. I mean, git-scm.whatever isn't that, is it? That feels more like... Idunno, it's actually Atlassian in a thin disguise, isn't it?

Not.

1: What other kind of faith in Microsoft would be even remotely warranted?

2) "perfectly reasonable and legitimate explanation ... risks exposing trade secrets ... a separate concern from potentially accidentally violating a license"

2 a: Sure, they may be separate concerns, but Microsoft is acting -- and you, by arguing for them, at least im- but AFAICS explicitly endorsing their viewpoint -- as if their interest obviously overrides everyone else's. Why should it? They're the ones who want to do this, so why shouldn't their code be the one exposed to any risk? If you want to test if some newfangled house-building material is really as fire resistant as its manufacturers claim, you can set fire to your own house, not your neighbour's. Also, there's only one Microsoft whose interests would be put at risk if they use their own code; but they chose to expose how many others?

2 b: For someone complaining about "bad faith" on the part of others, "potentially accidentally" is some mighty fine weasel wording. What's "accidental" about intentionally building a product and intentionally training it on a bunch of code written by others? (They didn't just randomly press some keys and say "Oops, let's see if it gets trained on our code now, or everybody else's", did they?)

3) "starts by asking 'can you". Then, if the answer is 'no, we can't', reinterprets the answer as 'no, we won't' ('withholding' is an intentional act"

3 a: The word"can" has several valid usages in English. If I say "Can you pass me the salt, please?" and you don't, then you are (assuming you have no severe physical handicap that's stopping you) intentionally withholding the salt from me.

3 b: Even if Microsoft is actually unable to provide the asked for data, the question arises: How come they are? They've built this product. Not building that traceability into it was their choice. Why did they choose not to?

If anyone is "busted" here, it seems to me that's you: Busted as a Microsoft shill.

There is currently an open investigation case at the Better Business Bureau (filed by my self), but OpenAi refuses to participate. I.E. OpenAI refuses to defend its business practices in front of a government entity.