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

Saying Goodbye to GitHub

ersei.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 450 posts

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#11

Post by bruce511 »

I'm gonna get hated on for this, but I don't think "give back" is an open source concept.

I'm not aware of any Open Source license,or Free license for that matter,that has a give-back clause. Source code is available to -users- ,not prior-authors.

Some Open Source licenses can be used in proprietary code, (MIT, BSD etc) with little more than simple attribution.

Those developers chose that license for a reason, and I've got no problem with commercial entities using that code.

There is a valid argument to be made about the training of models on GPL code. (Argument in the sense that there's two sides to the coin.) On the one hand we happily train humans on GPL code. Those humans can then write their own functions,but for trivial functions they're gonna look a lot like GPL Source.

If the AI is regurgitating GPL code as-is, then that's a problem- not dissimilar to a student or employee regurgitating the same code.

But this argument is about Free software licenses,not really (most?) Open Source licenses.

Either way OSS/Free is not about "giving back",its about giving forward.

In the specific case here of co-pilot making money,I'd say A) you're allowed to make money from Free/OSS code. B) no one is forcing you to use this feature.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#12

Post by Aaron2222 »

aetherspawn wrote: post #4

Why hasn't someone just changed the GPL license already: "If you train an AI on this code, you must release the source code and generated neural net of that AI as open source" or something to that effect. It won't stop it, but it will slow it down, and it seems like the right T&Cs to put on training against GPL code because it gives an advantage to open source AIs, however minor.

Aren't they claiming that it's fair use? IANAL, but wouldn't that make the licence irrelevant if training AI/ML models was found to be fair use? And if not, it's a licence violation anyway?

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#13

Post by Dalewyn »

aetherspawn wrote: post #4

Why hasn't someone just changed the GPL license already: "If you train an AI on this code, you must release the source code and generated neural net of that AI as open source" or something to that effect. It won't stop it, but it will slow it down, and it seems like the right T&Cs to put on training against GPL code because it gives an advantage to open source AIs, however minor.

Implying the "AI" community respects intellectual property rights.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#14

Post by bottlepalm »

Is there really anything ‘unique’ about the code we write on a line or even function level? It all feels like plumbing to me. It’s how you put it all together that makes what you create with it unique and special.

Copilot so far has generally just figured out what I was going to type next anyways without it, nothing mind blowing, but super helpful.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#15

Post by ipsum2 »

Unfortunately moving to Gitlab or Sourcehut doesn't really help, because the underlying model (GPT-x) is trained on the entire internet, so that includes all scrape-able websites. The only way for your data not to be used in GPT (and therefore Copilot) is to not to put it on any website or make it very difficult to access, like encrypting it.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#16

Post by ethbr0 »

jacquesm wrote: post #10
aetherspawn wrote: post #4

Why hasn't someone just changed the GPL license already: "If you train an AI on this code, you must release the source code and generated neural net of that AI as open source" or something to that effect. It won't stop it, but it will slow it down, and it seems like the right T&Cs to put on training against GPL code because it gives an advantage to open source AIs, however minor.

They are really not going to care about what you put into your license file, they are just going to claim that the use of GitHub binds you to their terms of service and that this supersedes your own license. Good luck fighting that.

ToS doesn't supercede copyright though, does it?

The real rub will be the first court precedent on whether GPTs infringe on source data IP.

Could see it going either way: fundamentally transformative or not.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#17

Post by alex_suzuki »

praptak wrote: post #9
alex_suzuki wrote: post #2

While I agree with the general observation of the article, the tone and wording feels needlessly harsh and subjective. Sentences like „I could go to GitLab, but they have their own fair share of issues and a disgusting UI/UX.“ really diminish the article and by association, also the author.

It's a personal blog. The author has no obligation to keep it to the standard of a trade magazine. Blogs are supposed to be subjective and it's okay for a blog post to be harsh if the author feels so.

Sure. Just saying that for me personally, it’s a turn-off and makes me take the article less seriously.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#18

Post by jacquesm »

ethbr0 wrote: post #16
jacquesm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are really not going to care about what you put into your license file, they are just going to claim that the use of GitHub binds you to their terms of service and that this supersedes your own license. Good luck fighting that.

ToS doesn't supercede copyright though, does it? The real rub will be the first court precedent on whether GPTs infringe on source data IP. Could see it going either way: fundamentally transformative or not.

It shouldn't but good luck fighting the 500 Lbs gorilla on its home turf. Most people will avoid the fight, even if they are in the right.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#19

Post by npinsker »

alex_suzuki wrote: post #2

While I agree with the general observation of the article, the tone and wording feels needlessly harsh and subjective. Sentences like „I could go to GitLab, but they have their own fair share of issues and a disgusting UI/UX.“ really diminish the article and by association, also the author.

I appreciated the specific word choice there; 'disgusting' implies a strong, visceral reaction, as if to say GitLab's work is so far from the author's taste that it blocks them from considering the product, and didn't seem all that harsh if that's how the author actually feels.

In a counterintuitive way, it was nice to read -- it says that UI is important; that it shouldn't be an afterthought; that it has the power to actively invite people in or greatly repulse them instead.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#20

Post by andrewstuart2 »

cookiengineer wrote: post #8
alex_suzuki wrote: post #2

While I agree with the general observation of the article, the tone and wording feels needlessly harsh and subjective. Sentences like „I could go to GitLab, but they have their own fair share of issues and a disgusting UI/UX.“ really diminish the article and by association, also the author.

I don't understand why GitLab (as in gitlab.com) doesn't focus more on the discovery part in order to make people feel more welcome. I was using github.com/explore almost daily while it lasted. The trending repositories by language were an amazing tool to discover new tools and ideas. I really wish GitLab had something equivalent to this!

I would probably agree that GitHub is better for discovery than GitLab, but the OP's comment is funny to me, because having worked extensively with both, I'm a much bigger fan of GitLab's UI and UX for builders. Groups and nesting are massive when it comes to being able to work with teams, and the fact that you can set options across groups at any level eliminates whole classes of things that are frustrating problems on github, or anything else that uses flat hierarchies.
Post reply on HN