[blatherard]

The current github terms of service don't seem to mention this use when they describe the license granted github.

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

4. License Grant to Us

We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time. This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.

This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service, except that as part of the right to archive Your Content, GitHub may permit our partners to store and archive Your Content in public repositories in connection with the GitHub Arctic Code Vault and GitHub Archive Program.

[Arainach]

That mentions everything: Parsing the content, showing it to/sharing it with other users, using it to improve and provide the service. GitHub and all of its features are "the service".

[dspillett]

True, but it doesn't mention doing so without the attribution that might be required by the code's licence. If full attribution of where the suggestion was derived from was included¹ there would be not issue IMO², it is this matter that creates the grey area which these discussions result from.

--

[1] the practicality³ of this is a different, though related, discussion

[2] because the user is fully informed and can take responsibility for the decision to use the suggestion or not

[3] or impossibility – given the code could be added by someone who doesn't include that attribution/licence information for the system to be able to pass on even if it were designed to

[paulryanrogers]

Sharing with license intact. If GH is sharing with the license and attribution stripped, then just punting IP vetting to pilot users, it seems to exceed their rights.

[cercatrova]

> show it to you and other users...analyze it on our servers...share it with other users...perform it

I don't know, sounds pretty similar to training on ML programs, even if they don't explicitly say "machine learning" in the ToS.

[cmeacham98]

> This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content.

This would, at a minimum, preclude charging for Copilot.

This is missing the point though. Microsoft claims their use of source code for Copilot is fair use. If they are correct about that, licenses don't matter, this EULA doesn't matter, etc. Everyone should be focusing on this claim, arguing about any other detail before that is decided is a waste of time.

[puffoflogic]

If anyone asked me to define Copilot I'd refer back to this:

> parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users

That is the most succinct and most accurate definition of Copilot I've ever seen.