3 ms·

> 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 a

> 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.
  - account42 4y ago
    You do get to choose what license you release under and people need to respect that license - ML code laundering or not.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      I'm aware, that doesn't contradict what I just said at all.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    > If the code had a license that forbid reupload you could ask GitHub to remove it. Licenses don't need to forbid re-upload generally to be incompatible with GitHub. Given that uploading to GitHub, according to someone quoted on page 1 of this discussion, grants GitHub the right to use that code to "improve their service" (whatever that means -- maybe Copilot?), not explicitly granting that right to them, or the right for someone else to grant it to them, is enough to make them not allow uploading to GitHub. So that should be more like: "If the code had a license that didn't specifically allow Microsoft to use it to 'improve the GitHub service' you could order GitHub to remove it."

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.
- account42 4y ago
  You do get to choose what license you release under and people need to respect that license - ML code laundering or not.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    I'm aware, that doesn't contradict what I just said at all.
- CRConrad 4y ago
  > If the code had a license that forbid reupload you could ask GitHub to remove it. Licenses don't need to forbid re-upload generally to be incompatible with GitHub. Given that uploading to GitHub, according to someone quoted on page 1 of this discussion, grants GitHub the right to use that code to "improve their service" (whatever that means -- maybe Copilot?), not explicitly granting that right to them, or the right for someone else to grant it to them, is enough to make them not allow uploading to GitHub. So that should be more like: "If the code had a license that didn't specifically allow Microsoft to use it to 'improve the GitHub service' you could order GitHub to remove it."