| 1 |
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022, James Le Cuirot wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Thu, 2022-07-14 at 16:43 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
>> It looks like the SFC is urging foss developers to ditch github over |
| 5 |
>> this. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/01/open-source-developers-urged-to-ditch-github-following-copilot-launch/ |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Although I don't work for GitHub specifically, it would still not be |
| 10 |
> appropriate for me to wade far into this debate. In the interest of keeping |
| 11 |
> things balanced though, I'll start and finish by referencing this |
| 12 |
> counter-opinion. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/11/robots_open_source/ |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I think the killer argument is that they apply double standards when it |
| 17 |
comes to Microsoft's own codebases: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
"Microsoft and GitHub’s public position is meanwhile clear: they claim to |
| 20 |
have no copyleft obligations for training the model, the model itself, |
| 21 |
and deploying the service. They also believe there are no licensing |
| 22 |
obligations for the output. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
[...] [T]hey believed [...] output produced by Copilot can be licensed |
| 25 |
under any license. We further asked if there are no licensing concerns |
| 26 |
on either side, why did Microsoft not also train the system on their |
| 27 |
large proprietary codebases such as Office? They had no immediate |
| 28 |
answer. Microsoft and GitHub promised to get back to us, but have not." |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/feb/03/github-copilot-copyleft-gpl/ |
Archives