gives an idea why paid so much for Github. They were after data: Tons of food for their AI, millions of contributors that now 'work' for MS for free.
You publish your code under GPLv3, even AGPLv3? So what? The AI learns from your code and uses it to generate code that is possibly proprietary. Does forbid this practice? (I don't think so)

That's the M$ way to break copyright law.

It's time for alternatives like @codeberg .

@t0k

I’m not a lawyer and I don’t have confidence over my legal understanding of the matter, so I’m just gonna leave these here as some extra argument and discussion on the topic:

juliareda.eu/2021/07/github-co

@Mehrad Thanks! I'm also not a lawyer, but I sense some false statements in the article. For instance the article claims that copyleft would not be necessary would copyright law not exist at all. At least it is imprecise at worst false: For example copyleft also enforces back-contributions to projects. Without copyright law this would not be possible in the same way. Maybe the intention was to say "without copyright law copyleft cannot exist". But then we're lost in contradictions.

@t0k
> For example copyleft also enforces back-contributions to projects

Unfortunately this is a myth only.

You are just required to deliver the code to whomever you deliver the software. Do are not required to back-contribute anything.
@Mehrad

Follow

@kirschwipfel @Mehrad Yeah true for GPL... Depends on the trigger condition though. For instance AGPL triggers on a user interaction already. I think technically would be possible to create a copyleft licence different from the GPL family which triggers earlier. But that slowly goes out of my area of expertise.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!