[lloeki]

This is the BSD 2-Clause License:

    1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

    2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
       the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
       distribution.

    THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
    "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
    LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
    A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
    HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
    SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
    LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
    DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
    THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
    (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
    OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Presumably, as long as GitHub Copilot:

a) fails to respect these itself, or

b) present the user that is going to use its output verbatim or produce derivative code from it so that the user can respect these

Then GitHub Copilot is either in violation of the license or a tool assisting in such a violation by stripping the license away†.

From TFA:

> David Heinemeier Hansson, creator of Ruby on Rails, argues that the backlash against Copilot runs contrary to the whole spirit of open source. Copilot is “exactly the kind of collaborative, innovative breakthrough that I’m thrilled to see any open source code that I put into the world used to enable,” he writes. “Isn’t this partly why we share our code to begin with? To enable others to remix, reuse, and regenerate with?”

I don't mean to disrespect DHH, but the "spirit of open source" isn't to wildly share code around as if it were public domain, because it is not, an author gets to choose within which framework their code gets to be used and modified††, otherwise one would have used public domain as a non-license + WTFPL for those jurisdictions where one can't relinquish their own creation into public domain.

† depending on whether the "IA"/Microsoft can be held liable of the automated derivative, or if the end user is.

†† cue GPL vs MIT/BSD