GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

Post by robertlagrant » Fri, Jan 06, 2023, 10:57 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #382

dangus wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's why major TOS changes are accompanied by the option to discontinue using that service. Usually they say that continuing to use the service after a certain date constitutes your agreement to the new terms. I think we're over here in our armchairs weirdly assuming that GitHub doesn't have any lawyers working for them. I think they know they're legally in the clear on CoPilot. I'm not at all a lawyer, but i…

I see Copilot as a trial balloon. If they get away with it you can expect the next move to appropriate the body of open source that is GitHub. Why the archenemy of open source should suddenly be trusted to play nice is something I really can't grasp.

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 06, 2023, 11:14 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #392

[deleted]

Post by hot_gril » Fri, Jan 06, 2023, 11:35 PM UTC

baby wrote: post #324

jacquesm wrote: post #3

Excellent. GitHub is in my opinion crossing a whole pile of lines here that should not have been crossed without the authors explicit permission, regardless of the utility of the tool they built. Copyright is not something that can be signed over by a terms-of-use change of a hosting provider, the expectation is that your host does not automatically claim the rights to anything that you store there. Such projects sho…

You say that like Github Copilot could have been trained in a different way. There's just too much utility and progress in Github Copilot to let this lawsuit win.

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 06, 2023, 11:37 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #238

jrm4 wrote: post #186

I'm still baffled as to why people treat Github like a public library despite being owned by what was at one time the greatest enemy of free and open source software in existence. Not saying they haven't changed their tune somewhat, but a library owned by Barnes and Noble is going to have very different incentives than an actual library. Made all the more silly by the fact that it's Git. You could just host it yourse…

It's been a bit over four years since the acquisition and Microsoft hasn't screwed it up yet. It's good to have a backup plan, but it's convenient to keep using it for now.

Post by tick_tock_tick » Fri, Jan 06, 2023, 11:47 PM UTC

thealchemistdev wrote: post #327

jrm4 wrote: post #186

I'm still baffled as to why people treat Github like a public library despite being owned by what was at one time the greatest enemy of free and open source software in existence. Not saying they haven't changed their tune somewhat, but a library owned by Barnes and Noble is going to have very different incentives than an actual library. Made all the more silly by the fact that it's Git. You could just host it yourse…

I saw this a few months ago. local> ssh user@example.com user@example> git init --bare $DIR user@example> exit local> git clone user@example.com:$DIR I've seen VPS services for as low as $4 a month. I'm with you in camp baffled.