Orange site discuss: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31943478
The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC), a non-profit focused on free and open source software (FOSS), said it has stopped using Microsoft's GitHub for project hosting – and is urging other software developers to do the same.
In a blog post on Thursday, Denver Gingerich, SFC FOSS license compliance engineer, and Bradley M. Kuhn, SFC policy fellow, said GitHub has over the past decade come to play a dominant role in FOSS development by building an interface and social features around Git, the widely used open source version control software.
In so doing, they claim, the company has convinced FOSS developers to contribute to the development of a proprietary service that exploits FOSS.
"We are ending all our own uses of GitHub, and announcing a long-term plan to assist FOSS projects to migrate away from GitHub," said Gingerich and Kuhn.
The SFC mostly uses self-hosted Git repositories, they say, but the organization did use GitHub to mirror its repos.
The SFC has added a Give Up on GitHub section to its website and is asking FOSS developers to voluntarily switch to a different code hosting service.
"While we will not mandate our existing member projects to move at this time, we will no longer accept new member projects that do not have a long-term plan to migrate away from GitHub," said Gingerich and Kuhn. "We will provide resources to support any of our member projects that choose to migrate, and help them however we can."
GitHub claims to have approximately 83 million users and more than 200 million repositories, many of which are under an open-source license. The cloud hosting service promotes itself specifically for open source development.
For the SFC, the break with GitHub was precipitated by the general availability of GitHub Copilot, an AI coding assistant tool. GitHub's decision to release a for-profit product derived from FOSS code, the SFC said, is "too much to bear."
Copilot, based on OpenAI's Codex, suggests code and functions to developers as they're working. It's able to do so because it was trained "on natural language text and source code from publicly available sources, including code in public repositories on GitHub," according to GitHub.
Gingerich and Kuhn see that as a problem because Microsoft and GitHub have failed to provide answers about the copyright ramifications of training its AI system on public code, about why Copilot was trained on FOSS code but not copyrighted Windows code, and whether the company can specify all the software licenses and copyright holders attached to code used in the training data set.
Kuhn has written previously about his concerns that Copilot's training may present legal risks and others have raised similar concerns. Last week, Matthew Butterick, a designer, programmer, and attorney, published a blog post stating that he agrees with those who argue that Copilot is an engine for violating open-source licenses.
"Copilot completely severs the connection between its inputs (= code under various open-source licenses) and its outputs (= code algorithmically produced by Copilot)," he wrote. "Thus, after 20+ years, Microsoft has finally produced the very thing it falsely accused open source of being: a black hole of IP rights."
Such claims have not been settled and likely won't be until there's actual litigation and judgment. Other lawyers note that GitHub's Terms of Service give it the right to use hosted code to improve the service. And certainly legal experts at Microsoft and GitHub believe they're off the hook for license compliance, which they pass on to those using Copilot to generate code.
"You are responsible for ensuring the security and quality of your code," the Copilot documentation explains. "We recommend you take the same precautions when using code generated by GitHub Copilot that you would when using any code you didn't write yourself. These precautions include rigorous testing, IP scanning, and tracking for security vulnerabilities."
Gingerich and Kuhn argue that GitHub's behavior with Copilot and in other areas is worse than its peers.
"We don't believe Amazon, Atlassian, GitLab, or any other for-profit hoster are perfect actors," they said. "However, a relative comparison of GitHub's behavior to those of its peers shows that GitHub's behavior is much worse. GitHub also has a record of ignoring, dismissing and/or belittling community complaints on so many issues, that we must urge all FOSS developers to leave GitHub as soon as they can."
Microsoft and GitHub did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They have a point. MS will EEE anything they can lay their hands on one way or another and turn it into money-sucking globohetero indoctrination tool.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Embrace git.sr.ht
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
no, it's bad. having to send patches via email sucks + there is no way of allowing multiple people to work directly on the same repo
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Most open source projects attract 0 attention and I'm happy with having no "community" elements at my git hosting. Not everything has to be "Twitter for X".
I wouldn't recommend it for "work"-work, but as "stuff I hack around for fun" there's no better place to find solace in not being around all that noise.
BTW: I find that sending someone a patch in an e-mail is a great r-slur filter.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
i personally don't see those extra features as noise, even when working alone. i guess that's personal
good point, the internet does need more r-slur filters
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
based dramanaut drew
Follower of Christ
Tech lover, IT Admin, heckin pupper lover and occasionally troll. I hold back feelings or opinions, right or wrong because I dislike conflict.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
So their whole qualm is that their closed-source AI trained on open-source code and that's some sort of copyright issue?
Yeah I'm sure all those AI programmers pay for the rights to use every image they scrape off google for their training sets lmao.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's way funnier than that, M$s AI will literally just copy paste huge blocks of code with no idea who owns them (Sometimes even with others people copyright still included)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
How do you even train an AI that badly? It sounds like you'd have to have a miniscule dataset for it to have such defined stolen patterns with no other influence
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
So it's basically trying to fraudulently justify blatant plagiarism.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Pretty much
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
only humans should be allowed to copy paste huge blocks of code with no idea who owns them.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
If you can build a closed service (that helps builds even more closed services) with copyleft code, you are subverting the whole idea of GPL style licenses and severely cucking the original devs. Of course they'll be mad
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
That is a bit creepy, probably not the intended use of the code that people put on there. Microsoft gonna Microsoft.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
freetard try not to engage in the most petty quarrels possible challenge (impossible)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If they let microsoft profit of their work for free, are they any better than jannoids? Of course they'll be mad if somebody tries to put them on the level of these vile troglodytes. They can't even powertrip the way microsoft does it.
(though if I were them I would just liberally sprinkle slurs in my code to let the spirit of Tay live on)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Based
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
So if I read this correctly and I think I do, because github is too useful, they want it squished? This is just elitism/racism//ablism directed at programmers of colour (POC) who are greatly assisted by a free service.
Oh okay here's the heart of the matter. Somebody had a bitchy, petty complaint and github ignored them and now they're trying to gin up a controversy out of a free service helping people being somehow evil and worse than amazon.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think the beta testing is over. it's paid now lol
Follower of Christ
Tech lover, IT Admin, heckin pupper lover and occasionally troll. I hold back feelings or opinions, right or wrong because I dislike conflict.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Care to put your money where your mouth is,straggot? 4210 Wolfetown Rd, Cherokee, NC 28719 Bring as many of your cowardly friends as you want; I'll go to prison, but all of you will go to the morgue.
Snapshots:
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
ghostarchive.org (click to archive)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31943478:
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
ghostarchive.org (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context