4 ms·

Where does this end? You write a license that your GPL code can only be re-hosted on non-GitHub hosts? git still exists, if I'm unhappy with GitHub I can just a

Where does this end? You write a license that your GPL code can only be re-hosted on non-GitHub hosts? git still exists, if I'm unhappy with GitHub I can just add a new origin (sourcehut, gitea, gitlab, self-hosting, etc) and push there. But I'm perfectly happy with GitHub and I'm fine if their ML thingy makes money off my code, I get free actions runners, a nice UI, pull-requests, etc, into the bargain, not bad. Like knock yourself out working out if the "monkey selfie" Supreme Court case law applies to copilot or not, what jurisdictions it covers, etc. But I don't care, sorry, I'm not interested.

CRConrad 4y ago
> Where does this end? You write a license that your GPL code can only be re-hosted on non-GitHub hosts? AFAICS you don't even have to: GitHub reserves the right to use uploaded code to "improve their services" (in some unspecified way). The GPL doesn't grant that right -- i.e. the right to grant Microsoft that right -- to any license holder, so anyone else but the copyright holder will infringe on their copyright by uploading it. > But I don't care, sorry, I'm not interested. If you've ever uploaded, or are planning to ever upload, anything containing code written by anyone other than yourself under a FOSS license to GitHub, you probably ought to be interested.
wiz21c 4y ago
> But I'm perfectly happy with GitHub and I'm fine if their ML thingy makes money off my code, I get free actions runners, a nice UI, pull-requests, etc, into the bargain, not bad. As an indivdual you can certainly think so. But as a community we must balance how much advantages do we get from GitHub versus how much advantages it gets from us. Considering that GitHub will probably make millions with copilot, then it is fair to say that a big part of that success comes from the quality of the code we collectively put one. Therefore, money should be shared. And the first thing to do is to ask Microsoft : how much money do you make on us ? And the only possible way to get an honest answer is to make sure the management of GitHub is done jointly by MSFT and the community. I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon. So I'm seriously considering getting out.
- UglyToad 4y ago
  Sure they're going to make more money from me (as a generic user) than value I will derive from them (on average over the population of users). Otherwise they go out of business and we use other available alternatives. But you know what? Even after copilot my code is still there, for people to make money from (as both GH and random people already do), to learn from, to cut up and rehash, to reference, to write (much) better versions of, to generally advance humanity. I know this is the root philosophical conflict between free software and open source but I wanted to state my view since this is a call to action and we'll be seen as betraying some ideal for failing to comply.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  > Therefore, money should be shared. Isn't this sort of the expectation of these free services? They provide a service to you for free, and in exchange they are able to collect data from you, store it in a database, and do things with it. I fully expected GitHub to do something like this (minus Enterprise repos that pay big money), and it's why I stopped using them. I instead use gitbucket, which is a free and open source self hosted thing. I also expect GitLab to do something similar. It is as they say in the crypto world. Not your wallet, not your crypto. Not your source control server? Not your code. Legally? Might be, but that doesn't matter. Do you have lawyers?
  - jeltz 4y ago
    But I have written code which is hosted on GitHub which other people have uploaded and I have signed no agreement to let them do so. Does this mean all open source projects older than GitHub need to stop using it?
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      No idea at that point. If the code had a license that forbid reupload you could ask GitHub to remove it. Otherwise that's the price of open source, you don't get to choose.
      - 4y ago
zimbatm 4y ago
It was the same with SourceForge. It worked great (for its time). You get stuff for free. It's convenient. And then slowly they started changing policy, closing the source, adding ads to the platform, .. then one day you realized you've locked yourself into their ecosystem. It's a bunch of work to move away. It will be worse with Github since they bolted so many things on top of Git.
chrismorgan 4y ago
> Where does this end? You write a license that your GPL code can only be re-hosted on non-GitHub hosts? Copilot’s contention is that it’s exempt from copyright restrictions under fair use doctrine, which means that your license that says they can’t use it is irrelevant and legally void.

CRConrad 4y ago

> Where does this end? You write a license that your GPL code can only be re-hosted on non-GitHub hosts? AFAICS you don't even have to: GitHub reserves the right to use uploaded code to "improve their services" (in some unspecified way). The GPL doesn't grant that right -- i.e. the right to grant Microsoft that right -- to any license holder, so anyone else but the copyright holder will infringe on their copyright by uploading it. > But I don't care, sorry, I'm not interested. If you've ever uploaded, or are planning to ever upload, anything containing code written by anyone other than yourself under a FOSS license to GitHub, you probably ought to be interested.

wiz21c 4y ago

> But I'm perfectly happy with GitHub and I'm fine if their ML thingy makes money off my code, I get free actions runners, a nice UI, pull-requests, etc, into the bargain, not bad. As an indivdual you can certainly think so. But as a community we must balance how much advantages do we get from GitHub versus how much advantages it gets from us. Considering that GitHub will probably make millions with copilot, then it is fair to say that a big part of that success comes from the quality of the code we collectively put one. Therefore, money should be shared. And the first thing to do is to ask Microsoft : how much money do you make on us ? And the only possible way to get an honest answer is to make sure the management of GitHub is done jointly by MSFT and the community. I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon. So I'm seriously considering getting out.

UglyToad 4y ago
Sure they're going to make more money from me (as a generic user) than value I will derive from them (on average over the population of users). Otherwise they go out of business and we use other available alternatives. But you know what? Even after copilot my code is still there, for people to make money from (as both GH and random people already do), to learn from, to cut up and rehash, to reference, to write (much) better versions of, to generally advance humanity. I know this is the root philosophical conflict between free software and open source but I wanted to state my view since this is a call to action and we'll be seen as betraying some ideal for failing to comply.
bioemerl 4y ago
> Therefore, money should be shared. Isn't this sort of the expectation of these free services? They provide a service to you for free, and in exchange they are able to collect data from you, store it in a database, and do things with it. I fully expected GitHub to do something like this (minus Enterprise repos that pay big money), and it's why I stopped using them. I instead use gitbucket, which is a free and open source self hosted thing. I also expect GitLab to do something similar. It is as they say in the crypto world. Not your wallet, not your crypto. Not your source control server? Not your code. Legally? Might be, but that doesn't matter. Do you have lawyers?
- jeltz 4y ago
  But I have written code which is hosted on GitHub which other people have uploaded and I have signed no agreement to let them do so. Does this mean all open source projects older than GitHub need to stop using it?
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    No idea at that point. If the code had a license that forbid reupload you could ask GitHub to remove it. Otherwise that's the price of open source, you don't get to choose.
    - 4y ago

zimbatm 4y ago

It was the same with SourceForge. It worked great (for its time). You get stuff for free. It's convenient. And then slowly they started changing policy, closing the source, adding ads to the platform, .. then one day you realized you've locked yourself into their ecosystem. It's a bunch of work to move away. It will be worse with Github since they bolted so many things on top of Git.

chrismorgan 4y ago

> Where does this end? You write a license that your GPL code can only be re-hosted on non-GitHub hosts? Copilot’s contention is that it’s exempt from copyright restrictions under fair use doctrine, which means that your license that says they can’t use it is irrelevant and legally void.