Nobody can answer this because it depends on the code and the resources of the entity suing you, but in general yes. This is why clean room design is a well-defined strategy: depending on the code and company, you would indeed not be allowed to work on the project because of the fact you'd seen a competitors solution previously.
Regardless of the legality, one of these situations is clearly ethical compared to the other. In the case were you get a job based on your knowledge of GPL software, you still must respect the license if you use that code commercially (i.e. at your new job). And yes, if you reproduce GPL code you "learned" from, you are violating the license.
A company ingesting an entire GPL codebase without warning or any way to opt-out in order to create a closed-source feature that they and only they will profit off of is clearly not the same as an individual reading the code and getting a job based on those ideas.
You're intentionally conflating scale here to make them seem the same.
> no warning that somebody/something is ingesting the repo
An individual reading code on their own time is not the same as ingesting terabytes to train a machine. No matter how much you believe in AI working similar to the human learning (it doesn't), they are not comparable.
> private profit
Again, the difference between an individual reading code to work for a salary is orders of magnitude different from ingesting terabytes of code so a company can create a new feature. Claiming these things are the same only makes sense if you ignore the massive differences in scale and the differences between how humans and machines learn.
> Is it unethical to use software for profit?
When the licenses explicitly say that if you use the software for profit it requires attribution, the answer is clearly yes. My code on github is licensed such that if you use it, you must say where it came from. The only way this isn't at the very least unethical (because it goes against my wishes as owner of the code) is if you argue that github isn't "using" the code, which clearly isn't true, because if everyone was able to opt out there wouldn't be a product for github to be working on at all.
Yes, of course it does, because if every user opted out then the model would not work as well as it does, and github would not be able to profit off the work of others to the degree they are (or will be). Just because they are taking code on a massive scale does not mean the outcome is inevitable: don't get it twisted, copilot only works because of the code human beings have written.
Yes, and those people are violating the licenses of the code when they do that. It's not unreasonable to expect a massive company like microsoft to not do this on a massive scale.
Hmm, I'm not sure this is as good of an example as you think it is. If the only way to get kids to do their homework was to essentially threaten them with physical "labor" (obviously 5 push-ups isn't much) it definitely feels like there may be larger issues at play.
Oh, for sure. The larger issues are all the issues that come with being in a poor, inner-city school where there are no real examples of how doing well in school could actually help one's life. Where gangs, violence, and going to prison or jail is assumed to be normal. I had students confused by the idea I've never been arrested and where all the adults in their family (including grandparents) are members of gangs. At this particular school, 4% would go onto any post secondary education. Less than 1% would attain a four year degree. The (majority of) students and their families had zero buy in for school meaning much of anything.
What do you mean? There's tweets in the article targeting him using the CoC. I don't think anyone would dispute he wanted to use multiple entropy sources. What are you disputing?
What's there to investigate? What's more likely, that people obsessed with social justice latched onto a story about a guy who gave a clinical discussion about rape statistics [1], alleging him to be a rape apologist, or that there's a conspiracy by the US government to smear Linux contributors who don't like backdoors?
They're not mutually exclusive, but someone attempting to connect the two will have to provide some evidence. So far, I've not seen any from anyone.
I mean, how exactly would this theory work? Intel/Microsoft/FBI/NSA is paying or fomenting "SJW trolls" to cause havoc and slander anyone who gets in their way of implementing a potential backdoor? What'll happen when they're up against cryptography contributors who are super progressive or have a "clean record"?
To me this seems way more likely to be just typical social media outcry and hyperbole with nothing nefarious underneath it. And in this instance, it just happens to have affected someone involved with Linux cryptography.
The chat is not the only way you can troll your team mates and cause them to rage quit (or scream at you and get banned themselves). I would actually say that the griefing created by people using slurs is actually pretty small.
You can be silent and ruin hundreds of games. Distinguishing that from genuinely bad players is not really easy.
"Bucketing a company as racist" is not the point. The point is that the CEO is the head of, represents, and consequentially speaks for the company. Their personal opinions are reflected in the company's internal and external image. Don't we all have better things to do than argue moot points in nested comment threads? ;)
Is your problem the labeling of the company as racist because the CEO is (presumably) racist, because I really don't see much of a difference between Pewdiepie "being racist" and Pewdiepie doing racist things (like using the n-word ... repeatedly). Is it any better if we say the company is ran by a racist and supports racist employees rather than itself "being racist"?
I don't know Marc DeForest or S2, I've never played HoN, I don't know the history here, and none of this directly matters to me, but my immediate comparison is to James Gunn/Dan Harmon -- both of them said some offensive things years ago, and both of them have apologized. Whether you think it was right for Disney to fire Gunn or for Adult Swim to retain Harmon, there's been atonement for that. Has DeForest atoned for his behavior, or is he continuing to make a lot of money being racist?
I'm a bit late to this, but check out keybase chat. You can sign up on desktop / mobile / whatever you like, and desktop users can even drag and drop to a folder on their computer to share files (with like a 250gb per person limit right now I think), so that gets you a lot of the functionality of email right there.
