If your code was in a private repo they supposedly didn't use it for training. I think it was also mentioned they tried to limit it to only repos where they could determine some kind of license they thought would permit such usage.

If you're publishing your IP to GitHub in a public repo and using a widely permissive license, they didn't need an agreement to use that IP to train copilot.

There needs to be a line somewhere that says, "if you use a widely permissive license, we will use your IP to make money for ourselves" or something like that, then, right?

That's what I want. To find that line.

Do they need to have such a statement? What makes them need to make such a statement? You've given them the permission with the copyright license you've published your code with.

Yes it's required, at no point did any license I assign my code give them permission to sell my IP as a part of copilot.

Which licenses do you use and where in the licenses does it state it couldn't be used as training data?

My license says something along the lines of "This is totally free, except for use by Microsoft and Github in anything they develop or sell."

So, where does it say they can use my IP?

Cool. Call an IP lawyer, sue Microsoft, and enjoy retirement on your new boat.

Or I guess you didn't really have any IP of value that was infringed on whatever license you claim to have made.

Dang, I was hoping you or someone could help. Anyways thanks for participating in the discussion none the less.

If you're not just being facetious then that someone who can help is an IP lawyer, and I congratulate you on your new boat. I'm not being fake with that.

Buf if you published your code with an MIT or GPL kind of license chances are they don't owe you anything nor do they have to say that it's using your code. IANAL, but nothing in those common licenses leads me to believe they owe you even that statement. If I'm wrong feel free to point to it.

You're not really engaging in this discussion much more than giving extremely vague hypotheticals and then making demands that seem like quite a leap. Where in, say the GPL, would they have to make a statement like you claim they need to? What are the actual terms in your public license and code that you have that they would have infringed in some manner? The repo would have to be public and you just said it would be free, so please do link it. Otherwise, what are we even talking about here? Just making noise on the internet I guess?

That's now the second time you've disparaged me. I think you're wrong and now I also think you're a jerk.

Its disparaging to ask for the public codebase that you claim Microsoft is using inappropriately or for you to explain why you think they owe you something?

And how is it disparaging to suggest that if you really think Microsoft somehow harmed you that you go and do the thing that would actually resolve the issue?

I try and learn from my mistakes. Can you describe exactly how I am being disparaging by these comments?

Also, following up, will you share the codebase in question? You said its free, and its clearly something publicly hosted in GitHub otherwise its entirely out of scope from this conversation.