And yet, they too are going under with the new homo logo redesign, a change they've made several years ago for repository roles (Owner -> Maintainer, etc), and now the Git itself is considering to !

The way it works it wouldn't directly suggest copyrighted Windows code, because it takes the context of what you wrote before into account in terms of what it suggests afterwards.

That said their argument about that part of it is stupid. The argument that Github are ignoring licensing with Copilot stands alone without kludging in some crap about Windows' codebase.

Also there is an even better reason to divest from Github, and that's because they are kikes promoting gay "diversity" and tranny jew agendas via bitching at or delisting anyone who doesn't follow their manipulative "code of conduct".

That isn't the reason. The reason is given;

For the SFC, the break with GitHub was precipitated by the general availability of GitHub Copilot, an AI coding assistant tool. GitHub's decision to release a for-profit product derived from FOSS code, the SFC said, is "too much to bear."

The tool "Copilot" was build using FOSS software but is not free. It's jewish and bad for FOSS and it's community.

What;

Gingerich and Kuhn see that as a problem because Microsoft and GitHub have failed to provide answers about the copyright ramifications of training its AI system on public code, about why Copilot was trained on FOSS code but not copyrighted Windows code, and whether the company can specify all the software licenses and copyright holders attached to code used in the training data set.

If intentions about copilot were honest and followed FOSS beliefs then it would have also been trained on closed-source Microsoft code. There is no reason it wouldn't other than to hide all the jew tracking and malware code within MS code.

Kuhn has written previously about his concerns that Copilot's training may present legal risks and others have raised similar concerns. Last week, Matthew Butterick, a designer, programmer, and attorney, published a blog post stating that he agrees with those who argue that Copilot is an engine for violating open-source licenses.

This bit explains your questionable contention. At the end of the day you're signing up for a close source piece of software that works due to FOSS systems to generate code suggestions for you. This then builds (((copyright))) issues during the fact. Your code that uses these suggestions can now be claimed as using (((copyrighted))) material after the fact.

Further explained in the very next bit;

"Copilot completely severs the connection between its inputs (= code under various open-source licenses) and its outputs (= code algo­rith­mi­cally produced by Copilot)," he wrote. "Thus, after 20+ years, Microsoft has finally produced the very thing it falsely accused open source of being: a black hole of IP rights."

It's all copyrighted code, and almost none has a license that allows use without some kind of attribution.