To me, the sentence

> I have a lot of open source code that I love to share for things like education or private stuff, but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me.

implies that they have code which they are sharing under that proviso. Do you read it differently?

You are right about the technical distinction of open source from source-available. I think that the GGP (and myself) were both using it colloquially as a shorthand for source-available.

Is Copilot trained on source available code? If not, then whatever restrictions you may want to apply with your source available code isn’t relevant. The debate is about copyleft.

The RMS function in Quake Source code exists in the copilot training set (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287) is covered under GPL which is source available (see https://github.com/id-Software/Quake-III-Arena/blob/master/c...)

GPL is an open source license. Please read the ancestors to understand what’s being discussed here.

Edit: I was clearly making a distinction between open source (as in covered by an OSI-approved open source license) and only source-available, rather than treating source-available as a superset of open source.