21–30 of 1001 posts
Copyright only covers the expressive parts and not the utilitarian parts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_distinction https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/5004 Most of your code is probably not subject to copyright in the first place, regardless of license.
Does GitHub not have the right to view and train from your content when you agree to their Terms of Service and upload your code? People are conflating their open source license with the one they give GitHub when making a GitHub account, but they are two entirely separate and parallel licenses. The former is for other people to use your code, the latter is for GitHub to host your code. If you don't like it, you are f…
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...
4. License Grant to Us
We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time. This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.
This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service, except that as part of the right to archive Your Content, GitHub may permit our partners to store and archive Your Content in public repositories in connection with the GitHub Arctic Code Vault and GitHub Archive Program.
Everything else aside, the design on this site is among the best I've ever seen. Amazing typography, great to read on a phone.
> Microsoft characterizes the output of Copilot as a series of code "suggestions". Microsoft "does not claim any rights" in these suggestions. But neither does Microsoft make any guarantees about the correctness, security, or extenuating intellectual-property entanglements of the code so produced. Once you accept a Copilot suggestion, all that becomes your problem: > "You are responsible…
They have some really good blow in Redmond.
If anybody could win an award for being coked up and sweaty on stage...
Doesn't really explain how co-pilot is stealing your community. I've used co-pilot and it works great until you are past boilerplate than it falls apart.
> Over time, this process will starve these communities. User attention and engagement will be shifted into the walled garden of Copilot and away from the open-source projects themselves The author seems to be implying that since Copilot can reproduce the code of open source repository X in certain scenarios there'd be no reason for programmers to learn/use/engage with repository X. But this is silly. Maybe s…
Doesn't really explain how co-pilot is stealing your community. I've used co-pilot and it works great until you are past boilerplate than it falls apart.
> Over time, this process will starve these communities. User attention and engagement will be shifted into the walled garden of Copilot and away from the open-source projects themselves The author seems to be implying that since Copilot can reproduce the code of open source repository X in certain scenarios there'd be no reason for programmers to learn/use/engage with repository X. But this is silly. Maybe s…
Does GitHub not have the right to view and train from your content when you agree to their Terms of Service and upload your code? People are conflating their open source license with the one they give GitHub when making a GitHub account, but they are two entirely separate and parallel licenses. The former is for other people to use your code, the latter is for GitHub to host your code. If you don't like it, you are f…
The current github terms of service don't seem to mention this use when they describe the license granted github. https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... 4. License Grant to Us We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as n…
Doesn't really explain how co-pilot is stealing your community. I've used co-pilot and it works great until you are past boilerplate than it falls apart.
Perhaps the author means that there’s a possibility that the programmer to whom the code was suggested won’t necessarily know its provenance and how to engage the community from whence it came. If so, that’s a stronger argument, but I don’t know that it’s the best one they can make.
Copyright only covers the expressive parts and not the utilitarian parts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_distinction https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/5004 Most of your code is probably not subject to copyright in the first place, regardless of license.
Doesn't Copilot reproduce the exact expression given the right prompt, though?