undefined | Better HN

0 pointsculi3y ago0 comments

I really like it too but I can't help but feel like all the same people panicked about Microsoft acquiring GitHub are suddenly quiet about the fact that Microsoft has found the ultimate way to profit off of open-source

There's a ton of developer effort that went into Copilot and those devs should be paid fairly. But the majority of what fuels Copilot is the millions of lines of open source code submitted every day.

I think I'd feel a lot better about it if they committed a good chunk of that money back into the same open source communities they depend on. Otherwise its a parasitic (or at least not fully consensual) relationship

0 comments

uluyol3y ago

Microsoft could simply crawl archives of code wherever they exist, and use that to build copilot.

GitHub hosting open source communities is a way of giving back.

culiOP3y ago

Microsoft gives free copies of Office to schools. Why do you think it does that? MS benefits from people being locked into its service and suite. It provides premium subscriptions for additional features.

Hosting code "for free" is part of its business model. It's not a way of "giving back"

Aeolun3y ago

> It's not a way of "giving back"

Github Advanced Security costs me $200+/month, but if I make my repository public, I get all of that for free.

Certainly feels like a way of giving back.

Of course it benefits them too, but it doesn’t have to be purely altruistic to be a net positive.

lolinder3y ago

Their point is that they didn't need to own GitHub to build copilot—they could have used the public code regardless.

2 more replies

throwoutway3y ago

Could have. But they didn’t

rmbyrro3y ago

They're providing Copilot for free for OSS maintainers.

blagie3y ago

OSS maintainer here.

No. They're not. They're advertising that they are.

They are providing it to a very small set of high-profile OSS maintainers some opaque algorithm picked out. Having high-profile adopters is just good business.

jlpqu3y ago

Exactly. They are bribing the project leads so they can then say that scanning is approved and voluntary.

1 more reply

rmbyrro3y ago

Perhaps they chose maintainers from OSS projects they scanned?

I'm not defending Microsoft's market tactics, for obvious reasons, but we do have to consider that anyone can publish whatever insignificant code as OSS and become an "OSS maintainer" out of nothing.

They have to draw the line somewhere. Nowhere they draw will make everyone happy.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsculi3y ago0 comments

There's a ton of developer effort that went into Copilot and those devs should be paid fairly. But the majority of what fuels Copilot is the millions of lines of open source code submitted every day.

0 comments

uluyol3y ago

Microsoft could simply crawl archives of code wherever they exist, and use that to build copilot.

GitHub hosting open source communities is a way of giving back.

culiOP3y ago

Hosting code "for free" is part of its business model. It's not a way of "giving back"

Aeolun3y ago

> It's not a way of "giving back"

Github Advanced Security costs me $200+/month, but if I make my repository public, I get all of that for free.

Certainly feels like a way of giving back.

Of course it benefits them too, but it doesn’t have to be purely altruistic to be a net positive.

lolinder3y ago

Their point is that they didn't need to own GitHub to build copilot—they could have used the public code regardless.

2 more replies

throwoutway3y ago

Could have. But they didn’t

rmbyrro3y ago

They're providing Copilot for free for OSS maintainers.

blagie3y ago

OSS maintainer here.

No. They're not. They're advertising that they are.

They are providing it to a very small set of high-profile OSS maintainers some opaque algorithm picked out. Having high-profile adopters is just good business.

jlpqu3y ago

Exactly. They are bribing the project leads so they can then say that scanning is approved and voluntary.

1 more reply

rmbyrro3y ago

Perhaps they chose maintainers from OSS projects they scanned?

I'm not defending Microsoft's market tactics, for obvious reasons, but we do have to consider that anyone can publish whatever insignificant code as OSS and become an "OSS maintainer" out of nothing.

They have to draw the line somewhere. Nowhere they draw will make everyone happy.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse