291–300 of 380 posts
> The CTO publicly apologised and said capacity needs to scale 30x to keep up with AI-driven load. I hope they don't start charging for regular use of GitHub, but when I see how some of the vibe coders make thousands of commits a day, I'm becoming more and more skeptical. Would be a real shame if we can't share and cooperate on code for free.
Just charge for commits per day after a certain number. Problem solved.
Everyone seems to be leaving GitHub, and forgetting the entire spirit of what git is in my eyes. Git was always meant to be decentralized, the problem here is that all the tooling around git was centralized to GitHub because it was a cleaner experience, they scaled nicely, and were properly maintained. I would prefer to still see mirrors on GitHub that are auto-synched because I've seen projects for years either self…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It did so in direct violation of the licenses of the code held there as well and then sold code snippets they had no rights to and still do.
How did you draw those conclusions? They don't seem to be in line with court rulings (i.e. Anthropic), which hold that training is fair use. Code is being treated the same as any other copyrighted content that is used for training, from blog posts to PR announcements from companies and everything in between. Of course the blog posts are PR announcements have their copyright held by their authors, with no license prov…
C'mon, I'm not even apart of the movement to move away from GitHub, but that's not really a valid argument. Sure, they CAN download the source code, but its not nearly as automatic. They don't get to download it all, en masse, from copying hard drives/databases they already own. They have to go over the internet. They don't get automatic notifications when new code gets pushed. And finally, if one wanted, they can make it harder for bots.
I certainly believe that these companies do get away with a lot more than the average Joe - see: Facebook downloading Anna's Archive, every pirated eBook - but that doesn't mean you have to hand it to them on a silver platter.
Plus, even if your code is private on GitHub, you can guarantee that they can't train there models on it anyway; unlike if you host it yourself, or somewhere else.
Does anyone else find it ironic when closed-source GitHub claims it's some super hero for open source?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there's no way the code is distributed properly according to any of the OSS licenses. In fact, it claims authorship with nonsense bylines saying the LLM wrote it.
> Because there's no way the code is distributed properly according to any of the OSS licenses. What are you talking about? There is no distribution, only read access.
That said, FOSS licenses are non-exclusive. Regarding the original upthread topic of GitHub's copilot training, iirc GitHub's terms and conditions involve granting them a license in order to host your code. Depending what else is in those terms, they may have had the ability to use all hosted code for LLM training through that license, instead of the FOSS licensing on any given Open Source repo. But that would only apply to GitHub/Microsoft, not third party scrapers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first paragraph comes from the Epstein files. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/09/jeffrey-e...
Thank you for taking the time to commen. It's great to see someone who shares a similar mindset. Have a wonderful day, and I'll make sure to read the article you linked.
https://archive.ph/2024.08.23-032320/https://vitalik.eth.lim...
It doesn't necessarily mean we should immediately suspect them of raising a flag for its own sake.
https://archive.ph/2024.08.23-032320/https://vitalik.eth.lim...
Epstein files remind me of the first line from《삼국지연의》or Pan-Asianists who raise the Universalism flag..
>The Himalayas divide, only to accentuate, two mighty civilisations, the Chinese with its communism of Confucius, and the Indian with its individualism of the Vedas. But not even the snowy barriers can interrupt for one moment that broad expanse of love for the Ultimate and Universal, which is the common thought-inheritance of every Asiatic race, enabling them to produce all the great religions of the world, and distinguishing them from those maritime peoples of the Mediterranean and the Baltic, who love to dwell on the Particular, and to search out the means, not the end, of life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did you draw those conclusions? They don't seem to be in line with court rulings (i.e. Anthropic), which hold that training is fair use. Code is being treated the same as any other copyrighted content that is used for training, from blog posts to PR announcements from companies and everything in between. Of course the blog posts are PR announcements have their copyright held by their authors, with no license prov…
I have written about this numerous times, so I won't repeat myself with the long form writing. Maybe I need to keep a list of comments somewhere, so I can reference them. I digress... In short: - GPL code requires attribution and sharing of code. Models strip license, so GPL is effectively violated. - Source available licenses are "for your eyes" only, so training on source available code is also violates said code's…
This was true before AI, and the ToS now explicitly includes AI training to avoid confusion.
In short: it has never been a good idea to put anything with a copy left or strong license up on GitHub if you wanted them to abide by it.
Everyone seems to be leaving GitHub, and forgetting the entire spirit of what git is in my eyes. Git was always meant to be decentralized, the problem here is that all the tooling around git was centralized to GitHub because it was a cleaner experience, they scaled nicely, and were properly maintained. I would prefer to still see mirrors on GitHub that are auto-synched because I've seen projects for years either self…
Forgejo is doing a lot of work to make the tooling decentralized, too. They are using open protocols and standards to link self hosted forges together.
> As of v9.0 in August 2024 the project relicensed from MIT to GPLv3+, with the explicit goal of staying copyleft and resisting future commercial capture of the codebase.
The value of copyleft for decentralization is too often overlooked.
What if you don't want to self host? Who offers low feature git hosting for a small price? Something like the old $7 account before github was bought by MS? All I want is hosting and a read only web interface, plus access control in case I have collaborators. All the offerings are enterprise priced because they offer "minutes of CI", "AI assistants" and other icing on the cake.
This is literaly just a bare repo over ssh, and a gitweb interface. It's too trivial for anyone to be selling that. And I don't think there's a large market for $5-$10 barebones setup when GH is free and you can self host.
(I use that VM as my primary public nameserver now and I don't really need a web front end for git so I'll be keeping my current setup. But if it had been available back then, I'd probably have gone for it.)