> the OSI getting to unilaterally define the technical definition of "open source" being controversial even within the software engineering community
I don't think this is controversial? The OSI defined the term when they introduced it, in the late 90s. When Microsoft came out with "shared source" there was a huge amount of pushback from people saying "don't think that this is open source" (ex: https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5496)
> Copilot doesn't only pick up "open source" code... it picks up any code that has been published under any reason
I agree. I'm not defending Copilot, and I think the legal questions here are interesting and tricky. My pushback here and throughout this page has been when people say non-commercial licenses are open source -- this thread started with kuon saying "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"
I don't think this is controversial? The OSI defined the term when they introduced it, in the late 90s. When Microsoft came out with "shared source" there was a huge amount of pushback from people saying "don't think that this is open source" (ex: https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5496)
> Copilot doesn't only pick up "open source" code... it picks up any code that has been published under any reason
I agree. I'm not defending Copilot, and I think the legal questions here are interesting and tricky. My pushback here and throughout this page has been when people say non-commercial licenses are open source -- this thread started with kuon saying "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"