? Did you read what I wrote, MS doesn't even claim copilot is covered by their terms.
They claim it is covered by fair use (some people also claimed there is code not hosted by GitHub in copilot, which would further confirm that they believe they are covered by something else)
Moreover terms have been largely unchanged for years AFAIK. If someone agreed to the license years ago, they can't have agreed to copilot use. Also copilot is not a service on their website, it is a separate service and they charge for it, also contradicting the terms.
If you think I'm mistaken I will gladly reevaluate what I said if you could kindly restate your position, by answering a few questions
What does separate service mean? What would Copilot look like if it was not separate?
Elaborate on "not a service on their website", as it is available and listed as a feature "Github Copilot" on their website.
Is the contradiction related to payment for the service, or just because you think it is separate?
Since I thought you were arguing that Githubs own terms prevent them from using the public repositories in Copilot, this is what I argued against.
If you think fair use is involved, then that's the end of the line. If MS claims fair use, then until a court says otherwise, it is. Anyone who thinks their copyright is being violated can get an injunction tomorrow.
they claim the training of their model is covered by fair use, but they did not say that was the justification they were using. They don't need to claim fair use.
It's pretty clear from the Terms of Use that they can use code hosted on github.com to provide any service they like, so long as it is a GitHub service. They don't need fair use, they already have the rights to do what they are doing.
Or you are mistaken and "the service" of github, includes all features available on the website including copilot.
Even if you're right and a court rules against them, what's to stop them changing the terms to become compliant?