Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: github's copilot feature

[Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1407 bytes --]

>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022, James Le Cuirot wrote:

> On Thu, 2022-07-14 at 16:43 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>> It looks like the SFC is urging foss developers to ditch github over
>> this.
>> 
>> https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/01/open-source-developers-urged-to-ditch-github-following-copilot-launch/

> Although I don't work for GitHub specifically, it would still not be
> appropriate for me to wade far into this debate. In the interest of keeping
> things balanced though, I'll start and finish by referencing this
> counter-opinion.

> https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/11/robots_open_source/

I think the killer argument is that they apply double standards when it
comes to Microsoft's own codebases:

"Microsoft and GitHub’s public position is meanwhile clear: they claim to
have no copyleft obligations for training the model, the model itself,
and deploying the service. They also believe there are no licensing
obligations for the output.

[...] [T]hey believed [...] output produced by Copilot can be licensed
under any license. We further asked if there are no licensing concerns
on either side, why did Microsoft not also train the system on their
large proprietary codebases such as Office? They had no immediate
answer. Microsoft and GitHub promised to get back to us, but have not."

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/feb/03/github-copilot-copyleft-gpl/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]