it is when you know that Microsoft employees are forbidden from looking at GPL code because they may unconsciously recall it and use it in a Microsoft codebase.
Casey knew that at the time and admitted to licensing it GPL for that exact reason.
That is a “dick move” to me. maybe i’m wrong. you be the judge, i guess.
so difficult that he wrote it so he could demonstrate how easy it is.
he gladly showed the rest of us how to do it, and he intentionally took action which prevented anything he did from being used within Microsoft. Microsoft is so shitty because they don’t know [thing] so i’m going to show everyone but them how to do [thing].
he could have chosen to help. he chose to not help. he chose to complain and ridicule while intentionally avoiding doing anything to change the situation he was unhappy with.
they were not caught using his solution. they published a blog entry describing that they were made aware of performance problems and they didn't mention him. it was rabid fans of Casey that started foaming at the mouth then, even though Casey publicly stated he didn't want or need credit, because the idea wasn't his to begin with.
For anyone interested about the blog post drama check https://twitter.com/cmuratori/status/1522468481135902725 (hn discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31284419)
Personally I think that he owes them nothing, especially after the way he was treated in https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/10362 so I can't comprehend statements which claim that he was an asshole for using GPL.
I'm saying he could have helped the situation, and he deliberately chose to not only avoid helping, but to hinder anyone at Microsoft who wanted to look at that code and contribute to Windows Terminal. That was a choice he made intentionally.
He could have taken the high road, there. He chose not to. It's his choice, don't get me wrong, he was well within his rights. I just disagree with that choice. that's why I call that a "dick move". And if you disagree with me, that's fine. "Dick move" means different things to different people at different times.
He was right, but he does not seem remotely pleasant to work with and has been remarkably adversarial. Hasn't exactly fostered a "let's hire him as a consultant" relationship.
Isn't that exactly what Copilot does?
no, that is not what copilot does unless you check the box (or fail to uncheck the box) that allows exact matches of code from public repositories.
https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/configuring-github-copilo...
actual users of copilot seem to know this little bit of information; commenters who like to make comments about things they have never used always overlook details like this, and perpetually restate the things they learned about the topic months or years prior, even when those details were incorrect at the time, and are still incorrect today.
I see. But the setting (which surprises me that is opt-in) merely checks whether the output is an exact match and forces the system to produce a new output. The system can and does (as seen on the tweet) output verbatim code. So the question that parent commenter asked is legit.