4 ms·

> Rate limiting Microsoft's ability to exploit FOSS [...]. That's my point-- how? Presumably you're just going to host your FOSS somewhere else that Microsoft

by kyrofa 4y ago

> Rate limiting Microsoft's ability to exploit FOSS [...]. That's my point-- how? Presumably you're just going to host your FOSS somewhere else that Microsoft can still get it.

prohobo 4y ago
The new platform itself could literally rate limit requests to download source code. For example: 100 repos per day. Or, the platform could make it part of their terms of use that licenses must be respected even for machine learning. It could be enough of a barrier to dissuade them. Would something like that stop Microsoft? Maybe, corporations tend to look for low hanging fruit for stuff like this.
- kyrofa 4y ago
  I'm afraid that feels like wishful thinking more than anything.
  - prohobo 4y ago
    It simply takes the advantage away from Microsoft. That's not wishful thinking, that's strategy. Small changes in a situation like this can make a big difference in outcome.
sreevisakh 4y ago
> That's my point-- how? Presumably you're just going to host your FOSS somewhere else that Microsoft can still get it. The problem isn't that Microsoft can access you code. It's the section D.4 on Github's terms of service [1]. If you are hosting your code on Github, you are essentially giving Microsoft the legal rights to do certain things with your code. That section is broad enough to allow Microsoft to train copilot with your code. It gives them the freedom to disregard the license. On the other hand, it would be a clear violation of the license if they read your code off another hosts and reproduced it verbatim. I don't know whether any legal challenges would stand in a court, but at least you are not giving away the right to do so. [1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#4-license-grant-to-us https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...
- kyrofa 4y ago
  IANAL, but as long as they block copilot producing verbatim code (which I believe they do now, after some blowback), I can't reason my way past "so you're not okay with a computer learning from you, but you are okay with people learning from you?". Because I am. One of the reasons I open source stuff is because I've learned so much from OTHER open source projects, and want to pay it forward. Limiting my "pay it forward" attitude to humans feels hard to enforce. Also, nothing prevents Microsoft from completely ignoring licenses and terms of use elsewhere. This product isn't open source: they can keep the list of projects they crawl to themselves, and I don't see any way to stop it.

by kyrofa 4y ago

> Rate limiting Microsoft's ability to exploit FOSS [...]. That's my point-- how? Presumably you're just going to host your FOSS somewhere else that Microsoft can still get it.

prohobo 4y ago

The new platform itself could literally rate limit requests to download source code. For example: 100 repos per day. Or, the platform could make it part of their terms of use that licenses must be respected even for machine learning. It could be enough of a barrier to dissuade them. Would something like that stop Microsoft? Maybe, corporations tend to look for low hanging fruit for stuff like this.

kyrofa 4y ago
I'm afraid that feels like wishful thinking more than anything.
- prohobo 4y ago
  It simply takes the advantage away from Microsoft. That's not wishful thinking, that's strategy. Small changes in a situation like this can make a big difference in outcome.

sreevisakh 4y ago

> That's my point-- how? Presumably you're just going to host your FOSS somewhere else that Microsoft can still get it. The problem isn't that Microsoft can access you code. It's the section D.4 on Github's terms of service [1]. If you are hosting your code on Github, you are essentially giving Microsoft the legal rights to do certain things with your code. That section is broad enough to allow Microsoft to train copilot with your code. It gives them the freedom to disregard the license. On the other hand, it would be a clear violation of the license if they read your code off another hosts and reproduced it verbatim. I don't know whether any legal challenges would stand in a court, but at least you are not giving away the right to do so. [1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#4-license-grant-to-us https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

kyrofa 4y ago
IANAL, but as long as they block copilot producing verbatim code (which I believe they do now, after some blowback), I can't reason my way past "so you're not okay with a computer learning from you, but you are okay with people learning from you?". Because I am. One of the reasons I open source stuff is because I've learned so much from OTHER open source projects, and want to pay it forward. Limiting my "pay it forward" attitude to humans feels hard to enforce. Also, nothing prevents Microsoft from completely ignoring licenses and terms of use elsewhere. This product isn't open source: they can keep the list of projects they crawl to themselves, and I don't see any way to stop it.