> It means that they have the right to share the code of others on GitHub, as long as they respect the terms of license. This is totally legal. But then, Copilo

> It means that they have the right to share the code of others on GitHub, as long as they respect the terms of license. This is totally legal. But then, Copilot will be able to analyze the code and violates the license terms, which isn’t. Both claims here are incorrect even though pretty much everyone gets this wrong. When someone who has obtained the right to redistribute some code only under the GPL uploads it to GitHub, that person (and that person only) violates the terms of the GPL. The GPL requires further redistribution only under its own terms, but uploads to GitHub come with a grant of a too-permissive license that a GPL licensee does not have the right to grant. When GitHub proceeds to use the uploaded code to train copilot, they (probably) are abiding by the terms of this new license they have been (fraudulently) granted. They are not bound by the GPL, that's not how licenses work: they've got the other one. Now, GitHub has a big weakness here which is that they ought to know they're being granted licenses that the putative licensors have no right to grant. But that still would not make them in violation of the GPL, just of the original copyright.