25 ms·
Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit
- toxicplanes1 2y ago[flagged]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- nuijakas 2y ago[flagged]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- rolph 2y agocopilot was apparently snipping license bearing comments, and applying "semantic" variations of the remaining code. i would package the entire code as a series of comments, [ideally this would be snipped by the pliagarists] leaving a snippet of example code that no one of sound mind would allow to execute, being proffered by copilot.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago> of sound mind That's a reach, these days... I'm seeing some really ... interesting ... behavior, being exhibited by folks that, at first blush, I think are kids, just out of bootcamp, but, on further inspection, turn out to be middle-aged professionals. I really think Teh Internets Tubes have been rather corrosive to collective mental health.
- klyrs 2y agoThe ability to think for oneself will diminish rapidly in an environment that rewards one for not doing so. Smart people still exist. They just aren't online.
- kirth_gersen 2y agoSuicide by words, here?
- nyc_data_geek 2y agoThe Internet is still one of the easiest ways to find and participate in communities and conversations with other smart people, if you're invested in vetting and filtering who/what you're engaging with. That said, I expect the ease of such will continue to decline as we approach a largely dead Internet, primarily consisting of bots talking to bots trying to sell each other herbal brain force supplements or whatever
- satvikpendem 2y agoFrom Plato's dialogue Phaedrus 14, 274c-275b: Socrates: I heard, then, that at Naucratis, in Egypt, was one of the ancient gods of that country, the one whose sacred bird is called the ibis, and the name of the god himself was Theuth. He it was who invented numbers and arithmetic and geometry and astronomy, also draughts and dice, and, most important of all, letters. Now the king of all Egypt at that time was the god Thamus, who lived in the great city of the upper region, which the Greeks call the Egyptian Thebes, and they call the god himself Ammon. To him came Theuth to show his inventions, saying that they ought to be imparted to the other Egyptians. But Thamus asked what use there was in each, and as Theuth enumerated their uses, expressed praise or blame, according as he approved or disapproved. "The story goes that Thamus said many things to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts, which it would take too long to repeat; but when they came to the letters, "This invention, O king," said Theuth, "will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered." But Thamus replied, "Most ingenious Theuth, one man has the ability to beget arts, but the ability to judge of their usefulness or harmfulness to their users belongs to another; and now you, who are the father of letters, have been led by your affection to ascribe to them a power the opposite of that which they really possess. "For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise."
- bityard 2y agoThis is pretty interesting, and I have conflicted feelings about the (seemingly obvious) outcome of this trial. I wonder, if MS and OpenAI win, does that mean it will be legal for anyone to take the leaked source code for a proprietary product, train an LLM on it, and then ask the LLM to emit a version of it that is different enough to avoid copyright infringement? That would be quite the double-edged sword for proprietary software companies.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y agoI suspect that this is exactly what will happen; not just with code, but also prose and artwork. Someone is likely to design an LLM that is specifically trained to do exactly that. Lots of money to be made...
- devmor 2y agoOn the matter of artwork there's no need for suspicion - it is and has been happening for a while now. There are entire online databases dedicated to providing non-consenting artist's "styles" as downloadable model parameters by name.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y agoTry getting Mickey Mouse comics. That should be fun...
- satvikpendem 2y agoStyle is not copyrightable so I see nothing wrong with making essentially a robot that can paint in the style of someone else.
- falcolas 2y agoIn isolation, no. But the produced works can be too close for fair use (as demonstrated with the Prince pieces by Andy Warhol), and passing it off as a piece from the original artist can open you up to forgery/fraud charges. To put another way, the motivations to produce art in another artist's style can still land the artist/buyer in legal trouble regardless of fair use.
- daedrdev 2y ago> The anonymous programmers have repeatedly insisted Copilot could, and would, generate code identical to what they had written themselves, which is a key pillar of their lawsuit since there is an identicality requirement for their DMCA claim. However, Judge Tigar earlier ruled the plaintiffs hadn't actually demonstrated instances of this happening, which prompted a dismissal of the claim with a chance to amend it. It sounds fair from how the article describes it
- whimsicalism 2y agoHuh. There have definitely been well publicized examples of this happening, like the quake inverse square root
- polishTar 2y agoFast inverse square root is now part of the public domain. Also, even if this weren’t the case you can’t sue for damages to other people (they’d need to bring their own suit)
- anonymoushn 2y agoIs the particular implementation that the model spits out 70+ years old?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- voxic11 2y agoBut copilot distributed it (allegedly) without complying with the GPL license (which requires any distribution to be accompanied by the license) so it still would be an instance of copyright infringement. https://x.com/StefanKarpinski/status/1410971061181681674 https://x.com/StefanKarpinski/status/1410971061181681674
- 2y ago
- mvdtnz 2y agoWhat were the plaintiffs even thinking when they submitted a claim based on identicality without being able to produce a single instance of copilot generating a verbatim copy. Even the research they submitted was unable to make a claim any stronger than "it's possibly in theory but we've never seen it".
- AmericanChopper 2y agoA lot of people post AI outrage comments on HN that are clearly based on a rather poor understanding of the law and legal processes. This entire case and all of the plaintiffs statements about it reads like one of those comments.
- loceng 2y agoThis kind of argument makes me feel like it also supports the abolition of patents: eventually multiple other people will come up with the same obvious solution, which becomes obvious once a person spends enough time looking at a problem.
- CodeWriter23 2y agoThe Patent System is not intended to be a test of exclusive original thought. The function of the Patent System is to incentivize search for solutions by temporarily securing exclusive right to market novel devices and processes for the discoverer.
- loceng 2y agoOf non-obvious inventions. My argument being all inventions are obvious once attention is applied to that area and scope.
- CodeWriter23 2y agoRequiring attention IMO takes something out of the realm of “obvious”. And the standard is “novel”.
- loceng 2y agoEverything in the future is novel, so that's a moot qualifier. Everything requires attention to be seen, once somethign becomes "obvious" is fully determined where you're looking and the scope you're zoomed in on. E.g. "matter is solid" until you zoom in and realize matter is mostly made up of space.
- CodeWriter23 2y agoMoot in your opinion. The idea is to bring the future more expediently by providing temporary incentive to pioneers reaching into the future.
- pledess 2y agoI thought "the Copilot coding assistant was trained on open source software hosted on GitHub and as such would suggest snippets from those public projects to other programmers without care for licenses" was explicitly allowed by the GitHub Terms of Service: https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... "If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service." In other words, in addition to what's allowed by the LICENSE file in your repo, you are also separately licensing your code "to use ... through the GitHub Service" and this would (in my interpretation) include use by Copilot for training, and use by Copilot to deliver snippets to any other GitHub user.
- dmitrygr 2y agoLots of my code is on github (eg https://github.com/syuu1228/uARM https://github.com/syuu1228/uARM), uploaded by others. I gave no license for its use in training. What now?
- zdragnar 2y agoIf the person didn't have your permission or permission from the license to agree to github's terms, then you sue the person who uploaded it to GitHub. You don't get to go after GitHub because you have no contractual relationship with them. At best, you can get an injunction forcing them to take it down, though getting them to un-train copilot may not be feasible. At best you'd get a small cash offer, since you're unlikely to be able to justify any damages in a suit.
- dredmorbius 2y ago17 USC §504 says otherwise: ... the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements ... in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000. ... in a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504> The issue isn't contract. It's copyright infringement.
- purpleblue 2y agoCan you insist or put instructions that AIs do not train on your code? If they train on your code but don't produce the exact same output, is there any protection you can have from that?
- archontes 2y agoWhen are people going to get that this isn't a right folks have? If your code is readable, the public can learn from it. Copyright doesn't extend to function.
- ADeerAppeared 2y agoPeople aren't going to get it, because you don't get them. People have the right to learn non-copyrightable elements from your code. The claim is that AI learns copyrightable elements.
- archontes 2y agoThe comment chain you are replying to includes a request to not train an AI on one's code. I agree it's certainly possible for AI to produce infringing output. Nevertheless, people don't have the right to enforce a limitation on training.
- warkdarrior 2y agoAnd to give a concrete example, in my view it should be allowed to use any source code to train a model such that the model learns that code is bad or insecure or slow or otherwise undesirable. In other words, it should be allowed to train on anything as long as the model does NOT produce that training data verbatim.
- archontes 2y agoMaybe you should update your view with 17 USC 106. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106
- munificent 2y ago> Indeed, last year GitHub was said to have tuned its programming assistant to generate slight variations of ingested training code to prevent its output from being accused of being an exact copy of licensed software. If I, a human, were to: 1. Carefully read and memorize some copyrighted code. 2. Produce new code that is textually identical to that. But in the process of typing it up, I randomly mechanically tweak a few identifiers or something to produce code that has the exact same semantics but isn't character-wise identical. 3. Claim that as new original code without the original copyright. I assume that I would get my ass kicked legally speaking. That reads to me exactly like deliberate copyright infringement with willful obfuscation of my infringement. How is it any different when a machine does the same thing?
- singleshot_ 2y agoThe guy who owns the machine is really rich, while you are more or less (all due respect of course) not worth suing. That’s why I think the opposite of what you claim is true: if you were to do this, absolutely nothing would happen. When they do it, they will get sued over and over until the law changes and they can’t be sued, or they enter some mutually-beneficial relationship with the parties who keep suing.
- beeboobaa3 2y ago> if you were to do this, absolutely nothing would happen Read up on the DMCA and the impact it has on e.g. nintendo emulators and the developers thereof
- dmix 2y agoThose emulators are very popular though to the point of potentially impacting another business's bottom line. Where an individual putting it out a small block of code isn't exactly going to attract expensive lawyers. I'm skeptical Github Copilot reproducing a couple functions potentially used by some random Github project is going to be a threat to another party's livelihood. When AI gets good enough to make full duplicates of apps I'd be more concerned about the source. Thousands of smaller pieces drawn from a million sources and being combined in novel ways is less worrying though.
- lnxg33k1 2y ago[dead]
- blooalien 2y ago| "Suddenly, you would steal a car" Nah, but I would download a copy of one without hesitation... ;)
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoA slight aside, but this is the subtitle: > A few devs versus the powerful forces of Redmond – who did you think was going to win? I hate that kind of obnoxious "journalism". Sometimes the little guy is actually wrong. To clarify, I'm not commenting on the specifics of this case, I just hate how fake our online discourse has been by appealing to "big guy evil" before even bringing up the specifics of the case.
- epolanski 2y agoI think you're misinterpreting the sentence. I think it merely implies MS has more resources to throw at the legal case.
- gpm 2y agoI don't think that's something you can take away from the little-guy big-guy narrative. Class actions are funded by courts awarding lawyers huge payouts if they win, not directly by the plaintiffs. There should be plenty of resources on both sides of this fight.
- mcmcmc 2y agoYou are sorely underestimating the legal resources available to one of the most powerful companies on earth
- gpm 2y agoI don't believe I am. To flush out my statement more fully there are diminishing returns on investing more money into a lawsuit, and both sides in a class action with this much money at stake should be sufficiently funded to be far beyond the point of diminishing returns. I'm not claiming Microsoft doesn't have tons of resources, I'm claiming that the plaintiffs attorneys should be sufficiently funded that the difference in outcomes is negligible.
- megaman821 2y agoMaybe but lack of resources doesn't seem to be the main problem. A handful of devs claim copyright infringement, the Judge says show me and they can't. Maybe if they had millions of lawyers trying to get Copilot to produce their copyrighted code, their case would be stronger.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- epolanski 2y agoI am not strongly opinionated on this, but the very fact Microsoft used all the code it could find, bar their own has always looked suspicious to me.
- jfoster 2y agoIs that a fact? If true, not sure whether it would have bearing on the legal questions, but certainly would make it seem like their actions are not in very good faith. Would love to hear their explanation if it did get raised in court.
- cdrini 2y agoI mean, I imagine it used a lot of their public code, like VS code, typescript, the new windows terminal, or anything on https://github.com/microsoft https://github.com/microsoft . They didn't use their private code, but they didn't use anyone else's private code either.
- sensanaty 2y agoThey claim to not use anyone's private code, but I wouldn't trust the psychopathic C-suite at M$ not to murder kittens and human babies if it made the line go up a quarter of a percentage point, yet alone something like this.
- cdrini 2y agoYou're free to speculate, but they have on multiple occasions said they don't train on private repos. Furthermore, there's no real incentive for them to do so, since (1) there are a lot of public repos, and (2) training on private repos opens them up to leaking things like private keys which would be a nightmare. It just doesn't make a lot of sense for them to do it.
- everforward 2y agoAlso, if anyone else uses private repos like I do, much of it will be "shame corner" code where it's only private because it's either half-finished or just terrible code because I wanted it to work right now. My maintainable code gets published, my nightmares get banished to private repos so no one else thinks it's a good idea to replicate.
- maiksik 2y ago[flagged]
- maiksik 2y ago[flagged]
- jenboy 2y ago[flagged]
- jenboy 2y ago[flagged]
- WesternWind 2y agoWait... So Microsoft doesn't use Microsoft Teams, it uses Slack?
- danpalmer 2y agoGitHub uses Slack, and has done since long before the Microsoft acquisition. GitHub also does a ton of chat-ops, or at least used to, so their migration from Campfire to Slack was a big move for the company, I doubt they want to move again.
- chrismsimpson 2y agoIf this is how the law is applied for code, are we to expect this is also how it will be applied for other data (e.g. audio a la Udio and Suno)?
- nashashmi 2y agoBig question: this thing called “training” AI off of data, how much of this is “training” and how much of this is “synthesizing”? It seems like if code is being copied and rephrased, it is synthetic. Not much “learning” and “training” going on here.
- thrwymsss 2y ago[flagged]
- griftrejection 2y ago[dead]
- bsza 2y agoShould we move to modified versions of FOSS licenses that forbid AI training? Found this: https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses Legally sound or not, these should at least prevent your code from being included in Copilot's training data, hopefully without affecting any other use case. I'm going to use one of these next time I start a new project.
- hardwaresofton 2y agoNote that wouldn’t be F/OSS — maybe OSS but the F wouldn’t be there.
- bsza 2y agoYes, that is clear. But personally I wouldn't want to write FOSS code anyway until Copilot learns to properly attribute FOSS code. Switching to a more permissive license later on shouldn't be an issue.
- cmeacham98 2y agoIf copilot is ruled fair use it doesn't matter what your license is, fair use superceeds it.
- gpm 2y ago> Legally sound or not, these should at least prevent your code from being included in Copilot's training data Has microsoft said this or something?
- bsza 2y agoI assumed (heard somewhere) that they only include open source repos in the training data. Turns out I was wrong. They don't care. https://web.archive.org/web/20210708165143/https://twitter.com/NoraDotCodes/status/1412741339771461635 https://web.archive.org/web/20210708165143/https://twitter.c...
- stale2002 2y agoYou can write whatever words you want on a piece of paper or uploaded to the info section of a GitHub repo. That doesn't mean anyone has to follow it. If it's legal to train on other people's stuff, without their permission, this would still apply to your code even if your code includes a license that said "I double extra declare that you can't train AI on this!!".
- cellis 2y agoI would like to ask an obvious question to the legally inclined here. How is this any different than remixing a song (lyrics/audio)? It's not "identical", and doesn't output "verbatim" lyrics or audio. What is the distinction between <LLM> and <Singer/Remixer who outputs remixed lyrics/audio>. By a quick Google search it seems remixes violate copyright.
- griftrejection 2y ago[dead]
- default-kramer 2y agoI'm not legally inclined, but... code and music are different? There must be different standards for when code is too similar, for when music is too similar, for when pictures are too similar, for when books are too similar. Also, remixes almost always do contain verbatim lyrics and/or samples from the original song. LLM output isn't supposed to contain verbatim copies, but I've been told that sometimes it does. (I don't know much about LLMs and I don't think Copilot is useful. I want my 2010-era Intellisense back, when it was extremely fast and predictable.)
- everforward 2y agoNot a lawyer, but that would be a fair use question, which I hear are notoriously complicated. Colloquially, I generally expect a remix to be comprised of the original instrumentals/beat (potentially edited, but virtually nothing actually new added), potentially new lyrics, and to still be recognizable as the original. The "still be recognizable as the original" part is a huge problem for fair use, and why I don't think remixes generally qualify. If it doesn't sound like the original then it's not a remix, but if it does sound like the original it can't be fair use. I think the underlying issue is the resulting work, not the process that went into creating it. I think (but am in no way sure) that copying parts of songs would be fine if you did something to them so they aren't recognizable as the original. As an example, if I take a song by the Beatles and repeatedly compress it until it's entirely compression artifacts, I would bet that I could publish that. I don't think it would matter that I started with a copyrighted work, what matters is that my finished product bears no resemblance to any other copyrighted work. That would mean it's just a normal "is this work too similar to existing works?" standard applied to humans as well. There is still an ancillary question of whether it's okay to train on copyrighted music, but that's really a different question than whether the works it creates infringe.
- yazzku 2y ago> The judge disagreed, however, on the grounds that the code suggested by Copilot was not identical enough to the developers' own copyright-protected work, and thus section 1202(b) did not apply. How did they reach this conclusion? How can you prove that it never copies a code snippet verbatim, versus just showing that it does for one specific code snippet? The latter is a lot easier to show, but I don't know what is it exactly that the prosecution claimed. I guess the size of the copy also matters in copyright violations?
- cdrini 2y agoI think there's a difference between a mathematical proof and legal proof. The mathematical proof would be "show that it never copies a code snippet verbatim", and you of course cannot prove that by example. Legal proof is I think different (not a lawyer). They're more pragmatic. If, observing a lot of cases where it does not verbatim copy, and, if an expert provides a reasonable argument as to why it is unlikely to verbatim copy, that is enough legal proof for a judge to conclude that the output is not identical enough to the developers copyrighted code.
- sagarpatil 2y agoOff topic: How does the judiciary decide which judge to choose for such highly technical case?
- benced 2y agoDistrict courts can set their own policies. The Northern California District - where this was filed - allocates a case according to the last 2 digits of the case number. Source: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges/civil-docketing-assignments/ https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges/civil-docketing-assignm...
- toxicplanes1 2y ago[flagged]
- jenboy 2y ago[flagged]
- Tomte 2y agoThat‘s Matthew Butterick‘s case.
- slicktux 2y agoYet people keep feeding it their code by using GitHub as their repo… Just how we use the internet to share information; there’s just no escaping it.
- jenboy 2y ago[flagged]
- jenboy 2y ago[flagged]
- jenboy 2y ago[flagged]
- snvzz 2y agoAll GitHub needs to do to make most happy is offer an opt-out toggle. It still doesn't.
- account42 2y agoThat wouldn't and shouldn't make most people happy. Repository owner != author for all the code - that's kind of the point of open source.
- snvzz 2y agoGood point. But on top of fork hierarchy, git commit authors can be used. This would mean excluding non-github members, and excluding members that opt out.
- MagicMoonlight 2y agoThe issue I have is that these models are inherently trained to duplicate stuff. You train them by comparing the output to the original. If I made an “advanced music engine” which rips Taylor swift files and duplicates them, I would be sued to oblivion. Why does calling it an AI suddenly fix that? They should have to train them on information they legally own.
- cdrini 2y agoThey're not "inherently trained to duplicate"; I think that's a bit of a disingenuous oversimplification. They're trained to learn abstract patterns in large datasets, and remix those patterns in response to a prompt. "You train them by comparing the output to the original." To the best of my knowledge this isn't correct; can you expand or cite a reference?
- rrobukef 2y agoThey are trained to duplicate, we just hope they do so by abstracting patterns. Various techniques stack the deck to make it difficult to memorize everything but it still happens easily, especially for replicated knowledge. "You train them by comparing the output to the original." -> You train neural networks by producing output for known input, comparing the output with a cost-function to the expected output, and updating your system towards minimizing the cost, repeatedly, until it stops improving or you tire of waiting. Cost functions must have a minimal value when the output matches exactly the expected to work mathematically. Engineering-wise you can possibly fudge things and they probably do so ... now. I don't agree with your critiques. It isn't an oversimplification, published code literally works as stated.
- cdrini 2y agoI disagree with the statement "they are trained to duplicate" because "to" implies a purpose/intent which is incorrect. I.e. "they are trained with the purpose of duplication". This is I believe pretty uncontroversially false. We already have methods to duplicate data. They are trained with the purpose of learning abstract patterns is much more correct. One of the biggest _problems_ of training is duplication, aka over-fitting. To say it's the purpose is imo disengenious. Ah I see what they meant by that statement. It is true that supervised learning operates on labelled input/output pairs, and that neural networks generally use gradient descent/back propogation. (Disclaimer: it's been a few years since I've done any of this myself so don't quite remember it that well, and the field has changed a lot). Note since the parameter space of the neural network is usually _significantly_ smaller than the training data set, a network will not tend to minimise that cost function near 0 for an individual sample since doing so will worsen the overall result. There is inherent "fudging", although near identical output can potentially happen. The statement here is more reasonable and similar to the training process than the first.
- perlgeek 2y agoFrom the article: > The anonymous programmers have repeatedly insisted Copilot could, and would, generate code identical to what they had written themselves, which is a key pillar of their lawsuit since there is an identicality requirement for their DMCA claim. However, Judge Tigar earlier ruled the plaintiffs hadn't actually demonstrated instances of this happening, which prompted a dismissal of the claim with a chance to amend it. So, the problem is really one of the lack of evidence, which seems... like a pretty basic mistake from the plaintiffs? They could've taken a screencap video back when Copilot still produced code more verbatim, and used that as evidence, I assume.
- albertTJames 2y agoLooking good ! Go Copilot !
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- lumb63 2y agoIt seems to me that regardless of the outcome of this case, some developers do not want to have their code used to train LLMs. There may need to be a new license created to restrict this usage of software. Or, maybe developers will simply stop contributing open source. In today’s day and age, where open source code serves as a tool to pad Microsoft’s pockets, I certainly will not publish any of my software open source, despite how much I would like to (under GPL) in order to help fellow developers. If I were Microsoft, I’d really be concerned that I’m going to kill my golden goose by causing a large-scale exodus from GitHub or open source development more generally. Another idea I’ve considered is publishing boatloads of useless or incorrect code to poison their training data. As I see it, people should be able to restrict how people use something that they gave them. If some people prefer that their code is not used to train LLMs, there should be a way to enforce that.
- xinayder 2y ago> I certainly will not publish any of my software open source, despite how much I would like to (under GPL) in order to help fellow developers. I think this is a rather radical approach. You're undermining the OSS movement because you dislike Microsoft (I do too). I think adding a clause or dual licensing your work is more effective at stopping big-tech funded AI crawlers than just not adhering to open source. You can host your code on sourcehut or Codeberg (Forgejo), you don't NEED to host it on a Microsoft owned platform.
- lumb63 2y agoThere is, as far as I am aware, nothing to stop Microsoft from crawling any other site’s code. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Things like “copyright” didn’t seem to stop OpenAI.
- elzbardico 2y agoI love the OSS movement. But the OSS movement is dependent on developers making a living somewhere else. If Microsoft effectively replace our class or at least a big part of it with AI, OSS becomes mostly irrelevant. Not everyone is multi-generationally rich or absurdly frugal. Most people like having good jobs.
- naikrovek 2y ago[flagged]
- passwordoops 2y ago"The lack of documents from the Windows maker is apparently down to "technical difficulties" in collecting Slack messages" Wait, I'm forced to use Teams at work but Microsoft employees are on Slack?!
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- nancyp 2y agoLinux/OSS is cancer. Said who? Anything in public domain is for grab by them. Until the open tech community is chicken enough to not boycott their no open source stuff such as github and linked in a proof nothing will happen.
- warkdarrior 2y agoSir, are you OK??
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- chidli1234 2y agoMicrosoft has deep pockets. Judges aren't objective. More at 11.
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]
- jenboy 2y ago[dead]