4 ms·
I'm not sure either —which is why I said "may have been reasonable" instead of "was reasonable" :) I can see an argument for doing your own research, but I can
by codesections 5y ago
I'm not sure either —which is why I said "may have been reasonable" instead of "was reasonable" :)
I can see an argument for doing your own research, but I can also see an argument for basing an analysis on what GitHub said in the FAQ — I'm honestly a bit surprised that Microsoft's lawyers let them say that with a product that can reproduce such large blocks of verbatim code.
- creshal 5y agoMy guess is that their lawyers weren't consulted, and that the Github people just shipped it on their own.
- yunohn 5y agoThat literally cannot happen in FAANG/MS, esp not when the CEO announces the product in a public blog post.
- swiftcoder 5y agoYep. Individuals in a FAANG don't have the ability to launch a product without review. Just drafting a press release for a new product involves Comms oversight and VP-level approval.
- hnfong 5y agoIt's not obvious that Microsoft is violating copyright yet. The main concern is whether the product makes others liable. So it could be that the executives really wanted to do it, and the lawyers thought "OK, technically we're not violating anything...."