smarken blog

Digital Sovrignty, Privacy, EU Law & Legislation, IT, Linux

Ever since Microsoft acquired GitHub for $7.5 billion in 2018, a question has hovered over the world's largest code host: *what exactly can Microsoft do with the code you publish there?* The short answer is: Microsoft does not claim **ownership** of your code ...but its terms grant Microsoft and its affiliates a broad **license to use** it, and since April 2026 that license extends by default to AI model training on your live Copilot sessions.

Ever since Microsoft acquired GitHub for $7.5 billion in 2018, a question has hovered over the world's largest code host: what exactly can Microsoft do with the code you publish there? The short answer is: Microsoft does not claim ownership of your code ...but its terms grant Microsoft and its affiliates a broad license to use it, and since April 2026 that license extends by default to AI model training on your live Copilot sessions.

1. Public repositories: no ownership, but a broad license

You keep the copyright to anything you publish. But under GitHub's Terms of Service, posting public content grants GitHub and its corporate family (which includes Microsoft) a license to host, display, and analyze that content. In practice, public repositories have been treated as fair game for training GitHub Copilot and Microsoft's in-house models ...Copilot was originally trained on billions of lines of public GitHub code, without regard for open-source license terms requiring attribution.

In 2024 GitHub introduced a per-repository opt-out toggle ("Prevent use of my code in AI training"), but its protection is limited:

Scenario Opt-out respected?
GitHub Copilot / Microsoft models Yes
Third-party models (CodeLlama, StarCoder, etc.) No, they scrape GitHub independently
Forks of your repo No, only the original repo's setting is honored
Code already used in past training runs No, not retroactive
Private repositories N/A, excluded from repo-level training by default

2. The 2026 change: Copilot interaction data is opt-out, not opt-in

On March 25, 2026, GitHub announced that from April 24, 2026 onward, interaction data from Copilot Free, Pro, and Pro+ users ...prompts, outputs, code snippets, surrounding code context, accepted and rejected suggestions, even from sessions in private repositories... will be used to train and improve GitHub's and Microsoft's AI models, unless you opt out in your account settings.

"Unless you opt out, you grant GitHub and our affiliates a license to collect and use your inputs (e.g., prompts and code context) and outputs (e.g., suggestions) to develop, train and improve AI models." ...GitHub Terms of Service, Section J

Key caveats:

  • Copilot Business and Enterprise are exempt ...their contracts prohibit training on organizational data.
  • Data may be shared with GitHub's affiliates (i.e., Microsoft), but GitHub says it will not share your inputs/outputs with third-party AI model providers for their own training.
  • GitHub distinguishes private code "at rest" (not used) from code actively sent to Copilot during a session (collectible unless you opt out).
  • For EEA/UK users, GitHub relies on "legitimate interest" as the legal basis ...the same contested approach the Irish DPC accepted in the Meta AI case, which privacy regulators across Europe continue to scrutinize.

3. What the courts say: Doe v. GitHub (9th Cir., Sept. 2026)

The most significant independent documentation is the law itself. In Doe v. GitHub, anonymous developers sued GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI, arguing that Copilot reproduced their open-source code without attribution or license terms ...a violation of the DMCA's copyright-management-information rules, with statutory damages up to $25,000 per violation.

On September 16, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the DMCA claim: Copilot creates new works rather than stripping attribution from copies of existing ones, so nothing was "removed." Crucially, the court declined to consider the plaintiffs' input theory ...the question of whether stripping license information during training data preparation is illegal remains undecided. Two breach-of-contract claims are still pending in the lower court. Translation: the legality of training on licensed code is still not settled law.

4. The FOSS community's own documentation

The Software Freedom Conservancy has run its "Give Up GitHub" campaign since June 2022, arguing that Copilot's training on GPL and other copyleft-licensed code violates those licenses, and ...most recently ...that GitHub joined an industry coalition opposing updates to California's AI transparency act on misleading licensing grounds. Independent analyses have also noted that GitHub published no verifiable benchmarks for its claim that training on user interaction data meaningfully improves models ..."trust us, it's better" is a marketing pitch, not documentation.

Bottom line

Microsoft does not own your code ...but its terms of service give it permission to use public code for AI development, and, since April 2026, to train on your Copilot sessions by default. The opt-out works within GitHub's own pipeline only, is not retroactive, and does not stop independent scrapers. The one major legal test so far ended in GitHub's favor on a technicality, without deciding the core training question. If you publish open-source code and care about how it is used: check your repo's AI-training settings, opt out of Copilot interaction-data training if you are on Free/Pro/Pro+, and follow the still-evolving case law.

Sources and further reading

GitHub / Microsoft (official)

Courts and legal analyses

Independent journalism and community

For over 20 years, Linus Torvalds warned developers that Microsoft’s “love for open source” could eventually become a strategy for control. Most people laughed at him.

But from GitHub Copilot and Windows Recall to AI integration, forced cloud dependence, telemetry, and Windows 11 restrictions… many developers are starting to ask the same question:

Was Linus right all along?

In this video, we break down Microsoft’s transformation from the company that called Linux “a cancer” to the corporation now controlling huge parts of the modern developer ecosystem — and why some believe the real endgame was never open source… but ownership of the layer above it.

This is not about hating Microsoft. It’s about understanding how power, platforms, and control really work in the tech industry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NGdHSvRH9M

Af Alanna Alexander, Proton Udgivet den 18. april 2026 (I uddrag : se original)

Hvad Microsoft 365 Copilot flex routing betyder for EU-virksomheder

Microsofts løfte om ‘datasuverænitet’ for Europa kommer med en stjerne. Fra den 17. april 2026 vil virksomheden begynde at sende Copilot-data til udenlandske servere til behandling.

Med introduktionen af flex routing for Microsoft 365 Copilot kan inferens for en Large Language Model (LLM) — det trin, hvor Deres data faktisk behandles — finde sted i USA, Canada eller Australien, når kapaciteten i europæiske datacentre slipper op.

Disse ændringer anvendes som standard. For nye kundekonti oprettet efter den 25. marts 2026 er flex routing allerede aktiveret. For alle andre vil det blive aktiveret automatisk, medmindre De fravælger det. (Instruktioner om, hvordan De gør det, findes nedenfor).

Hvis Deres virksomhed er baseret i EU eller Den Europæiske Frihandelssammenslutning (EFTA), er dette ikke en lille teknisk opdatering. Flex routing ændrer, om Deres AI-arbejdsgange forbliver inden for EU eller forlader det uden Deres viden. Og det understreger, hvad Big Techs version af digital suverænitet i virkeligheden betyder for Europa: De har stadig kontrollen.

Hvad er flex routing?

Inferens er det øjeblik, hvor en AI-model behandler Deres prompt for at generere et svar, uanset om det er at opsummere et dokument, besvare et spørgsmål eller udarbejde et udkast til indhold. Når dette sker, er Deres data allerede blevet samlet. Selvom Deres data er lagret i Europa, kan de nu blive behandlet et andet sted — automatisk, under en ikke-EU-jurisdiktion.

Hostet i EU betyder ikke behandlet i EU

Microsoft gør det klart, at data vil forblive krypteret(nyt vindue) i transit og i hvile. Det kan muligvis berolige nogle kunder. Men hvis De opererer under rammer som General Data Protection Regulation(nyt vindue) (GDPR), Netværks- og informationssikkerhedsdirektivet (NIS2) eller Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), er det ikke nok at beskytte data på lagerplads og under transmission.

Behandling (eller inferens) er der, hvor eksponering kan forekomme. Og under flex routing kan dette punkt nu flytte sig.

For at en AI-model kan udføre inferens, skal data gøres tilgængelige for beregning. Deres prompts, e-mails, filer og metadata indsamles og sendes til modellen. Med flex routing kan den pakke blive behandlet uden for EU.

Hvor Deres data behandles har betydning — selvom de er krypteret på vej ind og ud.

Byrden for overholdelse er Deres

Microsofts beslutning om at gøre flex routing til en standard funktion er et rødt flag. Forskning viser, at de fleste ikke gør sig den ulejlighed at tjekke deres standarder eller opdatere dem. Hvis datasuverænitet var noget, virksomheden gik op i for sine europæiske kunder, ville den ikke have implementeret flex routing automatisk.

Det advarer også Deres compliance-afdeling om, at leverandører pludselig kan beslutte at ændre en vigtig politik. De er nu ansvarlig for overvågning af leverandøropdateringer, tolkning af deres konsekvenser og justering af indstillinger for at forblive i overensstemmelse. Dette kan virke uretfærdigt, hvis De valgte en amerikansk baseret leverandør i den tro, at Deres datasuverænitet var vigtig for dem.

Flex routing afslører noget dybere om data governance

Hvis Deres leverandører er baseret i USA, stoler De på systemer, der er bygget til en anden lovgivningsmæssig virkelighed — en De ikke kontrollerer, men som De stadig skal stå til regnskab for.

Softwareopdateringer, support, juridiske politikker og prisbeslutninger træffes i Silicon Valley eller Seattle. Reglerne, Deres leverandør følger, er fastsat i Washington. Men Deres virksomhed holdes til europæiske standarder.

Derfor begynder flere virksomheder at se på europæiske alternativer til Big Tech. Når Deres infrastruktur, politikker og juridiske rammer er tilpasset den region, De opererer i, bliver datasuverænitet håndhævelig, ikke betinget.