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

181–190 of 450 posts

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#181

Post by elric »

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #168
fariszr wrote: post #33

> The code that was regurgitated by the model is marketed as "AI generated" and available for use for any project you want. Including proprietary ones. It's laundering open-source code. All of the decades of knowledge and uncountable hours of work is being, well, stolen. There is nothing being given back. Leaving GitHub wont change that, OpenAI is training its models on every bit of code they can have, sourcehut, cod…

This whole open source thing is the biggest farce on planet Earth. Someone with a good knowledge about geeks and their behaviour concocted up this open source bullshit. So now talented people give their skill to the "whole" and they have to beg for contributions and donations to get by. And other geeks (not suits with ties) finance the ones they sympathise with. It's ridiculous. And faceless entities use their hard w…

Yikes. You sound very bitter. Is there a story behind that bitterness?

There's a wide variety of people in the open source community at large. And a wide variety of motivations for contributing. I for one am happy that open source software is a thing. It's been a net good for mankind. Sure, there are abuses, and I'm sure many things could be improved. But I'm glad it's there all the same.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#182

Post by quickthrower2 »

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.

Microsoft cannot opt out of common law either

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#183

Post by quickthrower2 »

jacquesm wrote: post #18
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.

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.

It is a heavy gorilla.

1. Huge company.

2. Impossible to prove that a weight of -0.7 in a neural net means they used your code.

3. The code spat out by the bot isn't your code.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#184

Post by quickthrower2 »

MikusR wrote: post #170
jacquesm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apple, Google, Meta, Amazon, Nvidia use Github. They together are a bigger gorilla.

They are not your gorilla

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#185

Post by avodonosov »

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.

"And the code generated by the model also falls under GPL"

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#186

Post by natch »

EarlKing wrote: post #167
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'…

Co-pilot spits back protected expressions, not novel expressions based on ideas harvested from code. It is therefore violating the licenses of numerous free and open source projects. The author is right to be pissed.

This seems to be what people imagine about it, not what it actually does, although I don’t doubt you could cherry-pick some snippet after a lot of trial and error to try to claim that it had regurgitated something verbatim. But certainly let’s see the examples.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#187

Post by dolmen »

jacquesm wrote: post #96
pcthrowaway wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

> Copyright isn't 'opt in'.

Before 1989, copyright protection was opt-in in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#188

Post by avodonosov »

Aaron2222 wrote: post #12
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?

It will be difficult to claim fair use if training AI model is explicitly mentioned in the license, I think.

Currently GPL says:

> To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.

> A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based

If in addition it would say something like "Generative AI models trained on the program source code as well as the text produced with such models is also a work "based on" the Program", then there will be little room for a fair use claim, I think.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#189

Post by HenriTEL »

To be honest I never really believed in the original business model: - subscriptions for companies and proprietary software - Deals with 3rd party integrations

It's cheaper and not more difficult to self-host most parts now a day, and improving (k8s, helm charts, things like flux and gitlab). The hard part being to actually write those integrations (github actions). You also have more flexibility as you can run whatever code you want on your infra.

So it was a matter of time that things would change (less features for free tiers, ads or another way to make money out of the user base, like with copilot)

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#190

Post by toastal »

mattlutze wrote: post #147
sjamaan wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also from my experience of trying to leave GitHub, you just end up having a couple of projects on your alternative platform, and everything else on GitHub. > And if you want to build a community, you will quickly find out that the majority want to stick to GitHub, and leaving it can kill your projects chances of getting contributions. That's a defeatist attitude and a self-fulfilling prophecy at the same time. As m…

Parent is talking about a fundamental feature of networks. A denser and larger network has much more useful network-related features, and if one company has a significant majority of the total addressable market for a network, it's a massive ask for people to extricate themselves and rebuild a network somewhere else. It's why Facebook is still on top even though everyone hated it for a while; YouTube is the *only vid…

But we are developers, not my grandma. We ‘know better’ but haven’t been doing enough about it.
Post reply on HN