zlacker

I understand a lot of people are ok with this and that's fine.

There's still no good reason I cannot opt my code out of it.

>>snvzz+(OP)
I would seriously consider opting in so long as my authorship was acknowledged and my license was upheld. FWIW I tend to release things under permissive licenses (although I think if I was copyleft-inclined I might feel the same way: just match my license).

But stripping my copyright, copying my work without my permission and presenting it to users on terms I did not agree to, all of that is unacceptable.

>>snvzz+(OP)
Another comment said "don't open source your code", which I would agree with. If you don't want people reusing your code, just don't open source it. What's the point otherwise?

>>baby+ip
It's not black and white.

Letting people see the code doesn't mean they can ignore the license and do whatever the hell they want with it.

I am quite reasonable. I favor the MIT license. I still do not want my code in Copilot, which pretty much dismisses my rights entirely.

>>snvzz+OJ
I’m not sure I understand that point of view though. Copilot just suggests relatively short snippets, it’s not copying large chunks of your library or products. If you truly have an innovative algorithm and you don’t want people to use it like that, you’ll have to go the patent route

>>baby+WV
Letting me (and everybody else who doesn't want to be part of copilot) opt out is not, by any stretch, unreasonable.

It is basic human decency, and copilot would still be possible even if some of us opted our projects out.