Is copilot really a violation of GPLv3 (our license)? How is co-pilot different from someone lifting sections of code? Lifting a few sections of the code is a world different compared to re-distributing the entirety of the source code, or forking the project and replacing 2 or 3 letters from our brand name & then redistributing that.
I think the article needed to go into more detail about how that really is a violation of a license. This seems like a similar argument that was made in court whether the Java APIs themselves could be copyrighted. Can an algorithm be copyrighted or licensed? If someone uses the same algorithm as found on FOSS, have they violated the license of that FOSS?
Then the reaction, instead of pursing litigation, and/or communicating and working with github, the reaction is we should 'cancel' github and move to.. gitlab? Is that even an answer? If we think algorithms are copyright-able, wouldn't have any kind of code search be a violation? Would allowing for any kind of transcription of code be a violation? If so, then seemingly having the source be open would invite this.
I think this gets to the heart of FOSS in some ways. It's closed for privatization, open to the community, and what matters is the software provided. If someone cribs the project to configure a Feign client, or set up a unit tests with DbRider - it's okay! It's the same thing as viewing HTML source code, learning a cool javascript trick by looking at how some website did that trick - is part of the openness.
I wonder then, is the point of FOSS openness only to allow others strictly to view and edit the code for the purpose of contributing back to that exact software product? Or is the openness more than that, and that others are going to use the software in creative and novel ways, and use it for learning and who-knows how else (all pursuant to GPLv3).