5 ms·
Because it isn’t in compliance with the terms of many popular licenses to create derivative works without attribution. Therefore the only possible claim Microso
by jen20 5y ago
Because it isn’t in compliance with the terms of many popular licenses to create derivative works without attribution. Therefore the only possible claim Microsoft have to do so is via terms and conditions, which would not apply to code hosted on a stand-alone website.
It might be time for popular licenses to update themselves for this new-found threat.
- defen 5y agoWhat happens when some random person uploads your code (acquired from your website) to GitHub?
- leephillips 5y agoIt depends on how that code is licensed. Possibly the random person gets served with a summons. Possibly nothing.
- jen20 5y agoWell, that is what updating the license accomplishes. I’d be interested to know if code subject to DCMA takedown would be removed from the copilot training set…
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago> it isn’t in compliance with the terms of many popular licenses to create derivative works without attribution Did you click the link for this article? Did you see that MS removed the author’s name in the license header and replaced it with their own?
- jen20 5y agoYes?
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Therefore the only possible claim Microsoft have to do so is via terms and conditions No, Microsoft's claim is fair use, not GitHub terms and conditions. You don't have to speculate on what you think their possible claims are, when they've publicly stated their actual claims.