considering all GitHub projects (including private ones that didn’t explicitly opt out) were used for training AI. GitHub absolutely went to hell after the acquisition. I would never use GitHub for this and many other reasons, and I will never again use GitLab if the same thing happens to it.
Every open source license grants permission for AI training, and GitHub copilot by default rejects completions that exactly match code from its training. You can’t pretend to be pro-open source or pro-free software but at the same time be upset that people are using licensed software within its license terms.
Only if you can reasonably argue that the output is the input (even with exact matches over a certain size being auto-rejected), and that it is enough to qualify as a copyrightable work. I’d argue line completions can never be enough to be copyrightable, and even a short function barely meets the bar unless it is considered creative in some way.
So many errors in what you’ve written aren’t with the fact that one can INSTALL a copy of gitlab and get the CI/CD features, but actually with simple English.
That’s exactly what is going to happen. There would be no other incentive for companies to buy it.
I can’t think of a single reason that wouldn’t happen.
A company might want to extend it’s service offering with a build pipeline/CICD system, and buying GitLab would get them the best-in-class service.
Microsoft bought GitHub for much of the same reasons, and GitHub didn’t went to hell after the acquisition.
considering all GitHub projects (including private ones that didn’t explicitly opt out) were used for training AI. GitHub absolutely went to hell after the acquisition. I would never use GitHub for this and many other reasons, and I will never again use GitLab if the same thing happens to it.
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/privacy-policies/github-general-privacy-statement#private-repositories-github-access
? Nothing about such private repo access listed there.
Every open source license grants permission for AI training, and GitHub copilot by default rejects completions that exactly match code from its training. You can’t pretend to be pro-open source or pro-free software but at the same time be upset that people are using licensed software within its license terms.
If you use agplv3 for training your LLC, shouldn’t the code you spit out also be agplv3?
Only if you can reasonably argue that the output is the input (even with exact matches over a certain size being auto-rejected), and that it is enough to qualify as a copyrightable work. I’d argue line completions can never be enough to be copyrightable, and even a short function barely meets the bar unless it is considered creative in some way.
deleted by creator
If a license forbids LLM training, it is by definition not open source.
Code being visible for anyone to see is open source. The license for that code has nothing to do with it. You’re thinking of FOSS.
Incorrect. Open source means using a license that conforms to the open source definition. You can find that here: https://opensource.org/osd
So many errors in what you’ve written aren’t with the fact that one can INSTALL a copy of gitlab and get the CI/CD features, but actually with simple English.