[jakear]

You don’t want to pay for it because you like free stuff. So does everyone. But that doesn’t pay the bills.

You don’t need backcraft some moral argument. It’s trivial to see that a large amount of creativity went into developing the system, it’s not just a repackaging of public domain works.

[TAForObvReasons]

The whole controversy was that it was a "repackaging of [licensed] works": https://twitter.com/stefankarpinski/status/14109710611816816...

[xigoi]

Copilot's model is a derivative work of GPL-licensed code, but its source is not available anywhere, which violates the GPL.

[jakear]

Computers don’t violate licenses, people do. If you’re writing MIT code and copilot tells you to include Quake’s square root algorithm and you do so, that’s on you. If Google tells you to include Quake’s square root algorithm and you do so, it’s on you. If stack overflow tells you to do so and you do, that’s on you. In all of those cases it doesn’t matter whether the platform’s software is open source, why should it for copilot?

It’s the poorest of craftsmen who blames their tools. Rise above.

Also, note that simply accessing an online service does not constitute a distribution of software, and thus does not fall under GPL's domain. And "derivative" appears nowhere in the GPL.