FOSS projects like the Linux kernel use the GPL license because the developers want their code to be free not just for themselves, but for everyone everywhere for all time. It's not acceptable terms for you to take their work and use it to build an alternate operating system that you aren't going to share. If this wasn't important to them they could have just published their code under MIT/BSD licenses.
If you were to build an AI that used the Linux source code to generate a "new" closed-source operating system, in a very real sense all you've done is invent a new way to plagiarize the Linux community's work so that you can weasel your way out of their license terms. Even if you got away with this in the courts, it's obviously very unethical.
What Copilot does is enable the mass plagiarizing of open source code from everyone all at once, mixed up together so that it's hard to know who the original authors were, and then pretend that somehow this makes it ethical.
And then it killed itself in its confusion.
Also they kept changing the services they offered to projects so often I gave up on that as well.
SourceForge went bad ... and everyone left. That doesn't seem like a bad thing and there's no reason for me to think any given site / service will or won't go bad too. I expect that for any number of reasons I might need to move from one site to the next.
The rest too is kinda hollow to me. The fact that they're for profit doesn't upset me. I figured they wanted to make a profit when I signed up even ... not sure how that would surprise anyone now.
Co-pilot, I personally don't feel there is a compelling reason to leave github due to that either.
Maybe I'm not versed enough in some of this but as a rando dev I'm just not having any problems on github these days ...
I'm not saying the author is wrong or right or that I'm right or wrong, just that I'm not finding that article very convincing.