7 ms·

"Without attribution" is a condition of the licence that applies to third-parties. It is not a condition of the licence that applies to Github.

TAForObvReasons 4y ago
It's worth reading the passage in its entirety and how a court would interpret it: > We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it > This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service, except that as part of the right to archive Your Content, GitHub may permit our partners to store and archive Your Content in public repositories in connection with the GitHub Arctic Code Vault and GitHub Archive Program. If Copilot is straight-up reproducing work, and it is a service that users have to pay to use, then it seems like Copilot is "sell[ing] your content" and thus the license does not apply. More generally, a court is likely to look at the plain English summary and judge. Copilot is not an integral part of "the service" as developers understood it before Copilot existed.
- deanjones 4y ago
  "as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time."
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    You're trying to play desperate semantic games. "This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content" is unambiguously clear.
    - deanjones 4y ago
      "desperate semantic games" is actually a reasonable description of the legal process :-) I'm not sure I agree that anything expressed in a legal contract using natural language is "unambiguously clear". MS / Github's expensively-attired lawyers will not doubt forcefully argue that they are not selling the YOUR content, but a service based on a model generated from a large collection of content, which they have been granted a licence to "parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers". There may even be in-court discussion of generalization, which will be exciting.

TAForObvReasons 4y ago

It's worth reading the passage in its entirety and how a court would interpret it: > We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it > This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service, except that as part of the right to archive Your Content, GitHub may permit our partners to store and archive Your Content in public repositories in connection with the GitHub Arctic Code Vault and GitHub Archive Program. If Copilot is straight-up reproducing work, and it is a service that users have to pay to use, then it seems like Copilot is "sell[ing] your content" and thus the license does not apply. More generally, a court is likely to look at the plain English summary and judge. Copilot is not an integral part of "the service" as developers understood it before Copilot existed.

deanjones 4y ago
"as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time."
- lamontcg 4y ago
  You're trying to play desperate semantic games. "This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content" is unambiguously clear.
  - deanjones 4y ago
    "desperate semantic games" is actually a reasonable description of the legal process :-) I'm not sure I agree that anything expressed in a legal contract using natural language is "unambiguously clear". MS / Github's expensively-attired lawyers will not doubt forcefully argue that they are not selling the YOUR content, but a service based on a model generated from a large collection of content, which they have been granted a licence to "parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers". There may even be in-court discussion of generalization, which will be exciting.