Sorry it would likely be more correct to say "improperly licensed" code and not proprietary. Still for someone like me, the possibility of having LGPL, or any GPL licensed code generated in their project is a solid no thanks. I know others may think differently but those are toxic licenses to me.

Not to mention this code wasn't public so it's kind of moot, having someone's private code be generated into my project is very bad.

As to the option, I do not, I wasn't even aware of the option, but it's pretty silly to me that's not on by default, or even really an option. That should probably be enabled with no way to toggle it without editing the extension.

> As to the option, I do not, I wasn't even aware of the option, but it's pretty silly to me that's not on by default, or even really an option. That should probably be enabled with no way to toggle it without editing the extension.

why is no one aware of that option in this case? the person who tweeted this stuff even calls out that setting when he requests that others test it.

no one fucking reads; they react and they say their ignorant piece and they shit on GitHub and Microsoft and they move on to the next thing.

You said, "don't reproduce code verbatim" as the option. Maybe you should use the actual name of the option if you want people to know what you're talking about. The "with public code blocked" option I am aware of, and is distinctly different from what you said. Don't be a dick, and if you want to be a dick, be right the first time or fuck off, and since you weren't correct may I suggest that option to you now.

well unlike you I am human. I say things differently at different times.

He owns the copyright to the code, and the code is not in the public domain, therefore it is proprietary code.

That's not how anybody uses the word proprietary when dealing with software licensing. It's a term of art that stands in contrast to open source licenses.

For the record, I don't typically think in terms of the open source community.

I grant that if most people are using it one way here I was likely wrong for the way it is typically used by the normal open source community, I followed up with a reply saying it would likely be more correct for me to have said "improperly licensed" to be included in the training set.

Still it being private means it probably shouldn't be in the training set anyway regardless of license, because in the future, truly proprietary code could be included, or code without any license which reserves all right to the creator.

that is not what proprietary means and you know it.

The code is not GPL but is copyrighted in his name.

some of it is lgpl and some of it is gpl. code contributed by others is licensed differently.

The license for other code, even when in the same repo, doesn't apply to the license on the code that is under discussion here.

It is also allowed to be used under LGPL terms: https://github.com/DrTimothyAldenDavis/SuiteSparse/blob/mast...

But that doesn't make it any better.

Yes, but I was pointing that out to my parent poster, who erronesouly said the code was GPL licensed.

GPL'd code has a copyright owner.

those two things exist at the same time.

try reading a licence now and again!

Slow down there with the snarky comments. I never said GPL'd code doesn't have a copyright owner.

Any code is proprietary by default. GNU GPL license lifts some restrictions, in excange of more code, but it doesnt work when license is broken. Look at cases about GPL violation.

Copiloot doesn't obey GPL license, so they need to obtain written permission and pay license fees to be able to use code in their product.

Thank you for that, though it seems you replied to the wrong comment. That doesn't have to do with what I wrote.