[ryan_lane]

I open source my code specifically so that it can be re-used, ideally even for cases like this. To me, software freedom is the ability for it to be used for effectively any useful purpose, so that others don't have to do the same work again.

I understand that some folks don't believe the same thing, and use copyleft licenses so that their code can't be re-used in a closed way, and that's fair. Github shouldn't be training their product on copyleft licenses.

It's fair to call out its misuse of certain licenses, but "the equivalent of money laundering for violation of Open Source licenses" is simply inaccurate, as many licenses allow this type of re-use explicitly.

[JoshTriplett]

Do you license your code under a license that doesn't require any form of attribution or preservation of copyright notices? (Even permissive Open Source licenses typically do require that.)

If you do, then by all means they're welcome to use it without attribution or preservation of copyright notices, per the terms of the license you used.

But for all the Open Source code, even permissive Open Source code, that does require attribution or preservation of copyright notices, that's still a license violation. People don't often think of permissive Open Source licenses as something that can be violated, but they absolutely can be.