Good point, I would have thought GH requires you to agree in some TOS that you have permission to put the code on GH (but I don't know)? If so, could that point be put aside? (I'm not a software engineer so sorry if that made no sense. Super curious about the whole codepilot thing from a business and community perspective)
This is the complicated bit: All open-source licenses grant you permission to redistribute the code (usually with stipulations like having to include the license), so you are almost always allowed to upload the code to Github.
What it doesn't mean however is that you're the copyright holder of that code, you're merely redistributing work that somebody else has ownership of.
So who gets to decide what Github is allowed to do with it?
I expect this will end up in courts and we won't get a definite answer before that.
If you'll entertain me on a hypothetical for a moment. Suppose then the copious amount of intelligent folks over at GH know this will eventually end up in the courts, and expected that from the start. Would you suggest they messaged/rolled it out any differently? Did they do exactly what they needed to do so that it did end up in the courts? Should they have done anything differently to not piss folks off so much? Sorry for the million questions, you seem to know/have thought a bit about this. Thanks! :)
