Because now every copyright claim for GPL SW will hit the wall of Microsoft's lawyers.
But Microsoft has had a wall of lawyers for a long time. Microsoft's potential first-party GPL violations would have been defended by their lawyers for decades now.
This take seems to be stretching for a Microsoft bad interpretation.
Very much. I'm ok with Microsoft haters, provided that they are clear about their bias with themselves and others. They're not, though.
There is no chance that every negative comment on this site about Microsoft is unbiased. None.
So then it supports the sharing of code for anyone to use freely, which is the opposite of the "extinguish" strategy that microsoft did in the past.
> would you be OK with Microsoft effectively stealing that protected work
I think that copyright protections are way way to strong and I support making almost all of them useless and I support allowing people to side step copyright protections.
This is because I want more creative works to be freely useable by everyone. Especially for AI purposes, which is a highly transformative and powerful usecase.
So, are you saying people should only obey the laws they agree with when those people feel they're morally justified higher than those who voted for the laws in the first place, because it's your opinion to do so or did I not grok what you are saying you support?
Depends on what the law is.
Also, this may not even be illegal. Maybe this is just a legal loophole, and people are obeying the law.
In which case I am very happy that Microsoft found a completely legal loophole that will cause more code to be shared.
So by " side step copyright protections", we could just say that this is a completely legal loophole that has the effect of allowing more code to be shared but does not overrule other laws.
Which I think is good!
Copilot is a useful tool for "license-washing" code.