10 ms·

It's not outrage bait. The thing reproduces GPL licensed code verbatim.

Tenoke 5y ago
I'm talking about how it's presented. It starts with >oh my gods. they literally have no shame about this. Then continues with >it's official, obeying copyright is only for the plebs and proles, rich people and big companies can do whatever they want and > GitHub, and by extension @Microsoft , knows that copyright is essentially worthless for individuals and small community projects. THAT is why they're all buddy-buddy with free software types; they never intended to respect our rights in the first place At any rate, it's not even clear to me if me publishing code written with copilot (or even with a random tool that will wget from github) puts the blame on the toolmaker or on me. This post, however, doesn't attempt to look at that but uses language that paints GH/MS as doing something illegal (and evil) that others wouldn't even get away with but not caring about it.
- deviledeggs 5y ago
  Is that not true? Google and Oracle had a 10 year multi billion dollar legal fight over ~20 lines of code identical between Android and JVM. A non rich individual has basically zero chance of challenging GitHub on these blatant violations, and they know it. > At any rate, it's not even clear to me if me publishing code written with copilot (or even with a random tool that will wget from github) puts the blame on the toolmaker or on me. It really depends on the license, which GitHub apparently doesn't care about at all.
  - cortexio 5y ago
    maybe you are correct, but i would agree that it's formulated in a childish/evil spirited way. It smells of outrage hype and cancel culture.
- belorn 5y ago
  It seems that github did make a legal consideration when choosing to include public projects but exclude private ones, with many big companies having private projects for proprietary code bases. Users of public repositories are less likely to be able to fight github on the issue.
hu3 5y ago
Just a reminder: reproducing GPL licensed code verbatim is not illegal per see. The legality lies on what the user does with the code.
benhurmarcel 5y ago
But is that reproduced code "substantial"? I'm sure there's a "for i in range(0, n):" somewhere in a GPL repo, and yet having that in my code doesn't make it GPL.

I'm talking about how it's presented. It starts with >oh my gods. they literally have no shame about this. Then continues with >it's official, obeying copyright is only for the plebs and proles, rich people and big companies can do whatever they want and > GitHub, and by extension @Microsoft , knows that copyright is essentially worthless for individuals and small community projects. THAT is why they're all buddy-buddy with free software types; they never intended to respect our rights in the first place At any rate, it's not even clear to me if me publishing code written with copilot (or even with a random tool that will wget from github) puts the blame on the toolmaker or on me. This post, however, doesn't attempt to look at that but uses language that paints GH/MS as doing something illegal (and evil) that others wouldn't even get away with but not caring about it.

deviledeggs 5y ago
Is that not true? Google and Oracle had a 10 year multi billion dollar legal fight over ~20 lines of code identical between Android and JVM. A non rich individual has basically zero chance of challenging GitHub on these blatant violations, and they know it. > At any rate, it's not even clear to me if me publishing code written with copilot (or even with a random tool that will wget from github) puts the blame on the toolmaker or on me. It really depends on the license, which GitHub apparently doesn't care about at all.
- cortexio 5y ago
  maybe you are correct, but i would agree that it's formulated in a childish/evil spirited way. It smells of outrage hype and cancel culture.
belorn 5y ago
It seems that github did make a legal consideration when choosing to include public projects but exclude private ones, with many big companies having private projects for proprietary code bases. Users of public repositories are less likely to be able to fight github on the issue.

hu3 5y ago

Just a reminder: reproducing GPL licensed code verbatim is not illegal per see. The legality lies on what the user does with the code.

benhurmarcel 5y ago

But is that reproduced code "substantial"? I'm sure there's a "for i in range(0, n):" somewhere in a GPL repo, and yet having that in my code doesn't make it GPL.