I don't think this is controversial? The OSI defined the term when they introduced it, in the late 90s. When Microsoft came out with "shared source" there was a huge amount of pushback from people saying "don't think that this is open source" (ex: https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5496)
> Copilot doesn't only pick up "open source" code... it picks up any code that has been published under any reason
I agree. I'm not defending Copilot, and I think the legal questions here are interesting and tricky. My pushback here and throughout this page has been when people say non-commercial licenses are open source -- this thread started with kuon saying "I have a lot of open source code that I love to share for things like education or private stuff, but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me"
You are stating a rather arbitrary assumption of yours as a fact, unless you have concrete sources or evidence.
There are many OSI approved licenses with restrictions on use, like "your software must also be open source" or "contribute back your changes" or "give me attribution"...
Regardless: Copilot doesn't only pick up "open source" code... it picks up any code that has been published under any reason including the large amounts of code that is on GitHub without any license at all or which was literally stolen and leaked onto GitHub.
Meanwhile, even open source licenses have restrictions, whether they be "you can't use my work without agreeing to contribute back your work to the collective", various forms of automatic patent grants and associated retaliation clauses, or merely "you have to credit me", a simple limitation almost all open source software comes with which Copilot launders away.