This isn't interesting though. It doesn't even provide any value. It's a random guy that doesn't like GitHub, it could have just as well been a HN comment from yesterday.

It's just posted(not by the guy that made the page, mind you) to farm karma, exploit the news cycle and carve out some more space for discussion of this tired topic.

why are you on an upvote-based aggregator + forum if you're not looking for upvote-based links + commentary?

If it sparks the necessary discussions I don't care if it was written by Joe Random Nobody or Joe Biden.

> It's just posted(not by the guy that made the page, mind you)

Others would complain if the author himself had posted this.

The necessary discussion was already sparked.

Well, a lot of the people with voting rights here obviously thought otherwise.

Sometimes things were flagged off the front page while we was asleep or at work despite many votes. Happens fairly regularly.

Sometimes we've seen it but it is a new angle.

Right, but you either need a solid argument or some authority, and this guy has neither. He's effectively a nobody and he has just jumped to the conclusion that CoPilot is illegal.

If he had a good argument for that, fine. But without that he really needs to be someone whose opinion I care about.

This is somehow inverse logic. Does rape victim needs authority to voice raping in order to validate it? What is there that is not solid, CoPilot is using community code that is under GPL licence therefore Microsoft should not be able to charge for CoPilot but give it for free, or not create another revenue stream.

No, a rape victim needs a solid argument, i.e. evidence.

> What is there that is not solid, CoPilot is using community code that is under GPL licence therefore Microsoft should not be able to charge for CoPilot but give it for free, or not create another revenue stream.

You're doing the same thing as OP by assuming that this is illegal. That had yet to be determined. It could easily be the case that this falls under some fair use law or isn't even covered by copyright. It isn't for humans!

That argument is in infinite wrong loop, it seams like a justification of rapist with kind of Stockholm syndrome.

Fair use can be drill down to following, a very simple exploit question.

Would you work for free, if someone would earn million on your own work?

if (answer===yes) {

"then let me employ you I have few ideas and I need free work that could make me wealthy."

} else {

"if no then your entire argument is pure hypocrisy, trying to justify wealth built on exploit of others" }