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

91–100 of 450 posts

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#91

Post by zelphirkalt »

eulenteufel wrote: post #60
bruce511 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that AI usage of code is somewhat murky with current licenses,which obviously don't mention it either way. Free software has a principle of "freedom to run, to do whatever you wish" (freedom 0), so arguably has said that training AI is OK. (We could quibble over the word Run, but the Gnu.org,and RMS clearly say "freedom 0 does not restrict how you use it." GPL code can be used by the military to develop nucle…

I have no problem with Copilot being trained on AGPL code and the getting released with a AGPL compatible license. Free to do whatever they want with it. The problem is Copilot training on source code and then discarding any restrictions of the licenses. Maybe it is legal right now but I'm sure this case will find it's way into open source licenses pretty soon.

Even if usage is legal right now, the other obligations of the license need to be adhered to as well. Can't just pick or choose one tiny aspect of FSF philosophy and run with that. AGPL is clearly about sharing and spreading free/libre software as well.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#92

Post by jacquesm »

saurik wrote: post #75
techdragon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ToS is necessary for GitHub to provide their services, the wording is pretty carefully constructed so that GitHub are safe to change their service and develop new things. Loosely speaking "by uploading code you grant GitHub permission to blah blah with that code" I'm not sure how well it will go down in court fighting this... since we agreed to it. But the more interesting question will be is the result a complet…

I just want to make sure you appreciate that if you really believe this argument then GitHub can only be used by the people who actually directly own the copyright on projects; and if you, for example, want to clone and edit my software (the vast majority of which I explicitly never uploaded to GitHub) then you wouldn't be allowed to (which doesn't seem like either the intention or the way it is commonly used)... and…

Ah yes, good point: plenty of the people that fork projects do not actually have the copyright to that code to begin with, they just use github while they themselves are in compliance with the license, that definitely does not give GitHub rights that they would have otherwise to negotiate with the original copyright holders. 'Open source' does not equate 'public domain' and GitHub effectively seems to try to make that claim.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#93

Post by T3RMINATED »

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.

[dead]

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#94

Post by friend_and_foe »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #45
ethbr0 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You agree to Microsoft's ToS before you can put any code on Github, regardless of the license. You can't opt-out of those terms, regardless of your license, just as you can't opt out of Facebooks terms which give them the right to use your content for their business or marketing purposes, even if the various chain posts that have spread there might claim otherwise.

If code with a license, say GPL, goes out somewhere else, by someone else (and therefore I don't have the right to change the license) and then I fork it, as per the license I keep the license and put it on github, and Github violates that license, aren't they violating the law? Don't they then have to remove that code?

If that's the case then in that scenario the license supersedes the ToS right?

Now imagine this: I write some code, license it, but don't publish it yet. It's licensed. Then I upload it to github. Does the license supersede the ToS? Doesn't github have to remove the code as a ToS violation? What if I show my roommate the licensed code first, does that count as publishing?

The whole thing is absurd on it's face. All code is licensed before it ever goes on github. The license always supersedes the ToS. All licenses violate the ToS. All code on github should be removed by Microsoft for ToS violations or because Microsoft cannot abide their licenses. Their ToS is fucking illegal.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#96

Post by jacquesm »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #90
saurik wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of the code I've written that is on GitHub isn't on GitHub because I would ever have stooped to putting it there, but because it is open source under a license that lets other people redistribute and edit the code (most often GPL or AGPL; maybe some older code under BSD) and they have chosen to use GitHub (which makes me sad, but as far as I'd have been concerned is totally within their rights). Are…

Well upthread the discussion changed to using a non-open license that prevents people from training AI on it. If you released software under such a license, someone re-uploading to Github would probably be violating their terms or yours. Regardless, Microsoft would probably remove the repo if you contacted them to let them know you're the copyright holder, and the software license is incompatible with their terms. It…

You shouldn't have to though, they have a responsibility all their own to check that they have the rights regarding someone else's copyright before they do what they want to do, rather than to do it anyway and then to wait for the rights holder to come to them.

Copyright isn't 'opt in'.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#97

Post by layer8 »

bruce511 wrote: post #11

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'…

One possible problem is if Copilot gets good enough that you can rather easily sidestep GPL (or any other license) by having Copilot implement functionality X for you instead of using a license-bound library providing X. Not only may this be questionable regarding the license, but it would also be tend to reduce contributions to the library which otherwise would have been used.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#98

Post by yakubin »

desas wrote: post #83
dijit wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not aware of any Open Source license,or Free license for that matter,that has a give-back clause. §5.c of the GPL Version 3 states explicitly: > You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they…

Modifications you distribute have to be given back. You don't have to distribute the modifications though.

Not given back to the original authors, but given to the users.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#99

Post by zelphirkalt »

hikawaii wrote: post #89
eulenteufel wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no problem with Copilot being trained on AGPL code and the getting released with a AGPL compatible license. Free to do whatever they want with it. The problem is Copilot training on source code and then discarding any restrictions of the licenses. Maybe it is legal right now but I'm sure this case will find it's way into open source licenses pretty soon.

Do we know if CoPilot X was trained on AGPL, not just GPL? Additionally I'm not sure if AGPL does anything. I suspect the ethics and such of licensing when large fractions of work are training AI and using AI need to be worked out rather than getting mad at any individual. What does copy left look like for AI?

There is indeed a problem of transparency right now. Companies afaik did not release the complete training data set. Might even be intentionally, because they do not want to risk, that they trained it on stuff they should not have had, without building in license and attribution into the output of their models. Or it might be, that they know that to be a fact.

I can only hope, that lawmakers hurry to catch up with reality and impose transparency obligations for AI models.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#100

Post by tlocke »

Sander_Marechal wrote: post #73
happymellon wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, I'm talking explicitly about feelings. I know my feelings don't impact the legalities of a license. They don't impact the current legality of a licence, but it will affect future ones. GPL/BSD/Apache/proprietary, they are all picked for ideological concerns which all stem from feelings. It is good to discuss these things, and it is good to recognise that these are emotionally driven.

> They don't impact the current legality of a license, but it will affect future ones. Don't they? Even the most liberal licenses require that you at least keep the license and attributions. Which are exactly the parts that AI systems remove. I would have no problem with an AI system trained on GPL code if the output was still covered by the GPL.

The MIT No Attribution licence https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit-0/ doesn't require an attribution.

It's the licence I choose for new projects.

Post reply on HN