Also, given that the author of this tweet called me a "bootlicker" last year in response to a somewhat lengthy nuanced post about GitHub, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that they're not all that interested in a meaningful conversation on this in the first place but are rather on a quest to "prove" GitHub is evil.
>oh my gods. they literally have no shame about this.
Then continues with
>it's official, obeying copyright is only for the plebs and proles, rich people and big companies can do whatever they want
and
> GitHub, and by extension @Microsoft , knows that copyright is essentially worthless for individuals and small community projects. THAT is why they're all buddy-buddy with free software types; they never intended to respect our rights in the first place
At any rate, it's not even clear to me if me publishing code written with copilot (or even with a random tool that will wget from github) puts the blame on the toolmaker or on me. This post, however, doesn't attempt to look at that but uses language that paints GH/MS as doing something illegal (and evil) that others wouldn't even get away with but not caring about it.
A non rich individual has basically zero chance of challenging GitHub on these blatant violations, and they know it.
> At any rate, it's not even clear to me if me publishing code written with copilot (or even with a random tool that will wget from github) puts the blame on the toolmaker or on me.
It really depends on the license, which GitHub apparently doesn't care about at all.
The legality lies on what the user does with the code.
I'm sure there's a "for i in range(0, n):" somewhere in a GPL repo, and yet having that in my code doesn't make it GPL.