4 ms·
"Publicly available" is different from "licensed under a FOSS license". Anyone other than the original author doesn't have the right to distribute, modify or ev
by maxloh 4y ago
"Publicly available" is different from "licensed under a FOSS license". Anyone other than the original author doesn't have the right to distribute, modify or even execute the code.
Even if the code is licensed under an open source license, in most cases it requires users to attribute the original author, while in some cases derivative work must be licensed under the same license too.
GitHub Copilot use the code without honoring these obligations.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- c-hendricks 4y ago> distribute Does moving code between a company's data centres count as distribution? Heck doesn't merely hosting the files count as distribution?
- bastardoperator 4y agoYou grant GitHub a license to display your code, same for Codeberg, they're not bound by your license because you're granting them specific rights. Secondly can you prove damages when a person uses your code but doesn't attribute you? If you can't your license isn't very useful. This is what we all need to understand.
- xigoi 4y agoDisplaying the code is different from selling it. GitHub's license explicitly says that it doesn't allow them to sell your code.
- maxloh 4y agoHow about mirrors? GitHub doesn't pohobit mirroring repos/developing a fork from someone else's codebases. The original author didn't grant GitHub a license to use their code, but their code may be used for training the model.