Github is a GPL violator >Copilot is a for-profit product whose AI model was trained exclusively with projects that were hosted on GitHub, including many licensed under copyleft licenses. Github has been ignoring the license requirements for more than a year.
Github is proprietary >While GitHub pretends to be pro-FOSS , their entire hosting site is, itself, proprietary and/or trade-secret software.
You can't self-host github >GitHub differs from most of its peers in the FOSS project hosting industry, as GitHub does not even offer any self-hosting FOSS option. Their entire codebase is secret.
Github hates copyleft licenses >GitHub has long sought to discredit copyleft generally. Their various CEOs have often spoken loudly and negatively about copyleft. There are also examples of GitHub employees filing bug tickets in copylefted projects to cajole them to change to non-copyleft licenses.
Github is owned by Microsoft >GitHub is wholly owned by Microsoft, a company whose executives have historically repeatedly attacked copyleft licensing.
Github does business with ICE >In 2020, the community discovered that GitHub has a for-profit software services contract with the USA Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Activists, including some GitHub employees, have been calling on GitHub for two years to cancel that contract.
>Self-Host (or join a group that self-hosts). A few options:
*Gitea *SourceHut *GitLab Community Edition (note, the GitLab Enterprise Edition, which is provided to the public on gitlab.com, is (like GitHub) trade-secret, proprietary, vendor-lock-in software)
Jose Davis
None of this can harm Linux therefore this is leftist prattling
Bentley Murphy
>GitHub has long sought to discredit copyleft generally. Their various CEOs have often spoken loudly and negatively about copyleft. There are also examples of GitHub employees filing bug tickets in copylefted projects to cajole them to change to non-copyleft licenses. Hmm...
Github misused FOSS software on its platform and didn't respect their licenses. What does this have to do with leftism?
You don't want licenses to be respected?
Luis Reyes
>Github does business with ICE Wtf I love github now
Eli Nelson
This is all because the copilot isn't it? I hope there's a lawsuit for that. I like gh but they really need to get their shit together and bow down for the big foss cock and suck it dry like good little microsoft slave niggers
Liam Robinson
I don't respect proprietary licenses so meh. Microsoft, adobe, apple, oracle etc will never use it so why care if small companies lightly plagiarize.
James Gray
>be me >use github >write shit code >copilot is trained with my code >copilot writes shit code
Nicholas Scott
based
Ryder Smith
>code(((((berg)))))
Elijah Turner
It does business with a lot of the US government, progressives just hate ICE because it mainly goes after their voting base.
Christian Adams
>You can't self-host github As a matter of fact, you can. It's known as GitHub Enterprise. The code is still proprietary, but if you pay handsomely they give you binaries to selfhost it.
Zachary Reyes
I can't understand those who complain like this after uploading their codes to the internet. They should learn things again in a kindergarten.
Luke Parker
Does this not apply to companies and their proprietary intellectual "property"? Why can they sue me if I ignore their license, but these people can't sue the companies if they ignore the GPL and its variations?
Wyatt Campbell
>Github is a GPL violator Copilot is not a GPL violation despite Any Forumstards claiming otherwise (just like with any topic they don't know shit about programming or licensing) >Github is proprietary Why would they expose their server software? Meanwhile client side is free >You can't self-host github Why would I self host it? >Github hates copyleft licenses blatant lie, they encourage you to use free software licenses >Github is owned by Microsoft And? >Github does business with ICE Based, another reason to use it, I hope they use my software to deport more beaners
Adrian Nguyen
Seems reasonable. Github may have been one of the first and prominent, but especially after being bought by Microsoft we were just waiting for this sort of bullshit (even after the smaller problems). I'm not even too familiar with the Copilot issue but it sounds pretty shitty.
Anyway, the other alternatives here (Codeberg, Source Hut, Gitea, GitLab etc) seem like good ideas. However anyone more experienced in this know if they stack up properly to GitHub? I mean, I wonder is their prominence both coming relatively early and hosting everyone's shit for free (ie the YouTube model) or are they actually better at some features or others that you get with GitHub that you don't from one of the other ones etc?
Bentley Perry
sourcehut is email-based which is nice because you automatically have everything in a portable format and people can use their mail client instead of the web interface which also takes care of notifications, it's a well thought-ought system gitea and gitlab are github clones more or less
Xavier Parker
Whether they have their "right" is NOT important. They must know whether they can do or not. Uploading their codes is the same as killing their codes. They must kill themselves before complaining. FOSS or something idiomatic ideologies broke their brains. Stop using the internet assholes.
Easton Morgan
>copies significant amounts of GPL-licensed code (verbatim!) into your proprietary codebase >not a GPL violation Pick one, retard. >Why would they expose their server software? Because GitHub claims to support open source. If this were the case, they would share their code with others, because others who are truly committed to FOSS do this as well. >Meanwhile client side is free Post source then. >Why would I self host it? Because even if it were open source, you need to trust Microsoft to actually host the same code as is in the source repo. Self-hosting removes this trust requirement. >blatant lie, they encourage you to use free software licenses No, they encourage licenses such as MIT and BSD. Licenses that allow integration into proprietary software. They recommend those over GPL and AGPL. >And? known primarily for proprietary sofrware, notorious for hating Free Software and taking advantage of permissive licenses, closing down the source (often as part of EEE).
Adrian Long
Based
James Brooks
>Copilot is not a GPL violation despite Any Forumstards claiming otherwise (just like with any topic they don't know shit about programming or licensing)
Source
>Why would they expose their server software? Meanwhile client side is free
So other people can self host github
>Why would I self host it?
Other people may want to host it themselves
>blatant lie, they encourage you to use free software licenses
Where?
>Github is owned by Microsoft
It literally says microsift has been hostile to foss software
Jason Lewis
>>copies significant amounts of GPL-licensed code (verbatim!) into your proprietary codebase It doesn't, you don't understand how it works, stop pretending you're a programmer
Landon Murphy
>Source pic related = u
>It literally says microsift has been hostile to foss software It's literally a made up lie
>>copies significant amounts of GPL-licensed code (verbatim!) into your proprietary codebase Copilot doesn't do that, the person using it is the one copying the code into the proprietary codebase hence they are responsible for the GPL violation, not copilot >Because GitHub claims to support open source. How is hosting millions of open source repositories not supporting open source >If this were the case, they would share their code with others They share tons of it, just not the server >because others who are truly committed to FOSS do this as well. No true scotsman fallacy >Post source then. Open github, right click, view source >you need to trust Microsoft to actually host the same code as is in the source repo Not if you sign your commits >Self-hosting removes this trust requirement. Not for everyone else it doesn't >No, they encourage licenses such as MIT and BSD Those are free software licenses according to the FSF >Licenses that allow integration into proprietary software Nothing wrong with that, the FSF encourages it when it makes sense >They recommend those over GPL and AGPL. Because GPL and AGPL are niche licenses meant only for hardcore freetards >known primarily for proprietary sofrware Nothing wrong with that >notorious for hating Free Software Most sane people do >taking advantage of permissive licenses You're supposed to take advantage of them, that's the point of the license >closing down the source Nothing wrong with that >(often as part of EEE). Nothing wrong with that, reminder that GNU is 100% an attempt to EEE unix into freetardism
Xavier Fisher
>a lawsuit Last I checked us case law says automated text scraping and analysis falls under fair use, not sure where the gpl violation is
