> (...) I'm also remembering how GitHub used "all open repositories" to train their first Copilot without telling anyone.

This is a silly opinion to hold, isn't it? I mean, you release projects under a license with the express purpose of freely distributing your code among anyone in the world that may have any interest whatsoever, and even allow they themselves to share it with anyone they feel fit. But you are somehow outraged if people actually use said code?

Please make it make sense.

Because there's no way the code is distributed properly according to any of the OSS licenses. In fact, it claims authorship with nonsense bylines saying the LLM wrote it.

> This is a silly opinion to hold, isn't it? I mean, you release projects under a license with the express purpose of freely distributing your code among anyone in the world that may have any interest whatsoever, and even allow they themselves to share it with anyone they feel fit. But you are somehow outraged if people actually use said code?

You're making things up: the outrage is not that people used it, it's that the licence requires attribution at least, and opening the derivative product at worst. Token providers that trained on open source did neither.

> Please make it make sense.

I am skeptical that you didn't know the reason for the outrage because it's been repeated in every single thread where this was discussed.

I myself repeated it multiple times each time this feigned confusion you display appears.

Like I am doing now, yet again.