undefined | Better HN

0 pointsISL3y ago0 comments

The (insightful) point is that if the copyright holder is the one who uploads something to GitHub, that person has also agreed to the ToS. That was something I hadn't considered before reading the article.

That line of argument might defang any claims I might have against Copilot, as I have personally uploaded much of my public open-source code to GitHub.

0 comments

MattPalmer10863y ago

It's a good point. Having just read the terms of service, it is completely unclear that GitHub could monetise your code by training ML models on it.

They can analyse it. They say they can't sell it or distribute it outside the service. Even though this can apparently happen with copilot sometimes!

https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

MattPalmer10863y ago

It's a good point. Having just read the terms of service, it is completely unclear that GitHub could monetise your code by training ML models on it.

They can analyse it. They say they can't sell it or distribute it outside the service. Even though this can apparently happen with copilot sometimes!

https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse