3 ms·
> The writing is on the wall. You MUST host your own code on a stand-alone website. Because this does not prevent having the code to land on GitHub at the of t
by emilengler 5y ago
> The writing is on the wall. You MUST host your own code on a stand-alone website.
Because this does not prevent having the code to land on GitHub at the of the day assuming it is published under a free license.
Now it depends on how you interpret the "MUST". My logic only makes sense if you consider it to a dogmatic-like prevention.
- leephillips 5y agoThe statement you tagged as “wrong” was: > The larger issue is that anyone using GitHub is donating their work for re-use without attribution through Copilot. Why is this wrong?
- dragonwriter 5y agoIt is wrong as a specific statement about GitHub, because regardless of current practice, the legal theory for Copilot applies to any code anywhere, so anything that is publicly accessible would involve the same risk. It's not dependent on use of GitHub even if Microsoft has initially started their because it's easier for them.
- leephillips 5y agoSo this sense of “wrong” is similar to “correct”. Also, I don’t see how this is true. Code on my website is publicly accessible, but not in the public domain, nor licensed for re-use, unless I say that it is.
- dragonwriter 5y agoLicensing matters for things that would be forbidden without permission by copyright law. Fair use is an exception to copyright law. Microsoft's explicit legal theory around Copilot is that ingesting code for it (and ingesting content to train ML models more generally) is fair use. If there theory is correct, license is irrelevant, there is no legal (at least copyright-based) barrier to them using any source code they can get their hands on to train Copilot.