Is it that widely scoped? Can't we narrow it to "A third party who finds their GPL code on Github but has not uploaded that specific code to Github themselves has a right of action limited to that specific code."
Just because I created a github account once and agreed to the TOS doesn't mean that I agree to let others upload my code to github, where would that scope end. Could someone steal code off my computer which i've never published and put it on Github and that was OK because I once signed up for a github account, clearly a contrived example but.
I'm not sure that someone who published their work under the GPL hasn't thereby given consumers the right to put the repo on github. If the rights Github asks for in their ToS can be construed as a subset of the rights granted by the GPL, Github is just another GPL licensee. Unless they violate the conditions of the license, they're just utilizing their GPL rights.
> Github is just another GPL licensee. Unless they violate the conditions of the license, they're just utilizing their GPL rights.
And here is exactly the problem.
GitHub seems to be copying copyrighted code left and right and pretend they made it!
No attribution, no license.
They are of course allowed to let their AI study the code, but as "employer" of that AI GitHub/Microsoft has a responsibility if that AI breaks copyright right and left and they as a company pretend the code is theirs to give away.
Is it that widely scoped? Can't we narrow it to "A third party who finds their GPL code on Github but has not uploaded that specific code to Github themselves has a right of action limited to that specific code."
Just because I created a github account once and agreed to the TOS doesn't mean that I agree to let others upload my code to github, where would that scope end. Could someone steal code off my computer which i've never published and put it on Github and that was OK because I once signed up for a github account, clearly a contrived example but.