I call these people open source haters. They selectively choose what they want open source to mean, and are against the fundamental ideas of open source.
Long live Copilot. It’s an amazing product that shows what we are capable of thanks to crowdsourcing and bleeding edge technology. We live in the future, and progress never remembers those who tried to stop it.
> I call these people open source haters. They selectively choose what they want open source to mean, and are against the fundamental ideas of open source.
The plea seems to be against proprietary tech built off open source efforts.
If they open sourced Copilot then it would probably comply with most of the licenses anyways.
Like at the very, least, respect the licenses, that means, give attribution, and provide your own source as open source and under the same terms.
Open source is what allowed this progress in the first place, and the way I see it, commercial interest is actually simply trying to slow it down by keeping it behind proprietary trade secrets.
The definition of "open-source" will be given by the license included with the software (or lack thereof). It could mean that we adhere to the Open Source Initiative, or it could mean that the source code is freely available even though its use is not permissive. The license will tell, not your pre-defined conception of "open-source".
Long live Copilot. It’s an amazing product that shows what we are capable of thanks to crowdsourcing and bleeding edge technology. We live in the future, and progress never remembers those who tried to stop it.