8 ms·

> to use your code to improve their products and features >It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content I'm curious. Co

> to use your code to improve their products and features >It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content I'm curious. Copilot isn't actually part of github. It's a plugin for Visual Studio wouldn't that mean copilot is distributing code hosted on github, outside of github? You can't use copilot without visual studio. How is this not Microsoft just parasitizing all the code hosted on github to make visual studio better? Which as far as i know, depsite being owned by Microsoft is not actually part of github.

lindenksv85 5y ago
The “services” is that which is provided by GitHub. “GitHub” is defined to include all of its affiliates, including Microsoft.
LeifCarrotson 5y ago
I think it all depends on who 'they' are and what 'their products' re. The definition says: > 'GitHub,' 'We,' and 'Us' refer to GitHub, Inc., as well as our affiliates, directors, subsidiaries, contractors, licensors, officers, agents, and employees. Does that also include OpenAI? Does it include the Visual Studio team? All of Microsoft? The license granted by users to Github is: > We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time. This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video. > 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... IANAL, but naively, Github appears to be a code hosting platform. If they need to analyze my code to make it work with Git and with their code hosting features, that makes sense. For example, they might have a feature to prevent inadvertent commits of private keys, and would need to parse my code to do so. Maybe my code contains stuff that doesn't work with their generic private-key-finding parser, and they need to specifically run a subset of my code on their platform through their parser in a debugger to fix the feature. That's a sensible license to grant to a code hosting platform, they're not a no-knowledge encrypted storage provider. They don't appear to be a software vendor that sells code to other private parties for use in closed-source applications. Their license appears to specifically deny them the right to sell snippets of my code to others. I suspect, however, that this isn't a black-and-white factual issue, rather, one for a court to decide. One could probably hire an attorney to argue any possible angle on the legality of Copilot. And by a similar mechanism to the "Winner's curse", the company who developed a tool like Copilot would always have been one where their internal counsel advised them that what they were doing was totally legal.

lindenksv85 5y ago

The “services” is that which is provided by GitHub. “GitHub” is defined to include all of its affiliates, including Microsoft.

LeifCarrotson 5y ago

I think it all depends on who 'they' are and what 'their products' re. The definition says: > 'GitHub,' 'We,' and 'Us' refer to GitHub, Inc., as well as our affiliates, directors, subsidiaries, contractors, licensors, officers, agents, and employees. Does that also include OpenAI? Does it include the Visual Studio team? All of Microsoft? The license granted by users to Github is: > We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time. This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video. > 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... IANAL, but naively, Github appears to be a code hosting platform. If they need to analyze my code to make it work with Git and with their code hosting features, that makes sense. For example, they might have a feature to prevent inadvertent commits of private keys, and would need to parse my code to do so. Maybe my code contains stuff that doesn't work with their generic private-key-finding parser, and they need to specifically run a subset of my code on their platform through their parser in a debugger to fix the feature. That's a sensible license to grant to a code hosting platform, they're not a no-knowledge encrypted storage provider. They don't appear to be a software vendor that sells code to other private parties for use in closed-source applications. Their license appears to specifically deny them the right to sell snippets of my code to others. I suspect, however, that this isn't a black-and-white factual issue, rather, one for a court to decide. One could probably hire an attorney to argue any possible angle on the legality of Copilot. And by a similar mechanism to the "Winner's curse", the company who developed a tool like Copilot would always have been one where their internal counsel advised them that what they were doing was totally legal.