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

Det er ikke blot en pædagogisk udfordring, men et tydeligt symptom på en bredere udvikling, hvor unge i stigende grad er blevet dygtige brugere af lukkede platforme, men samtidig har mistet grebet om den grundlæggende forståelse af de værktøjer, de er afhængige af.

Sådan skriver Nicolas Guilbert, Skoleleder på Den dansk-franske Skole i København, som siden 2010 konsekvent har satset på fri software ud fra et ønske om at styrke elevernes digitale myndiggørelse og Guillaume Nadon, Lektor ved Erhvervsakademi København med erfaring inden for digital transformation, it-strategi og uddannelse, i deres debatindlæg på skolemonitor

Derudover skriver de om at øge teknologiforståelsen gennem brug af opensource som de har gjort det på den dansk-franske skole hvor Nicolas er skoleleder

I dag er fri software overalt – på servere, i hardware, smartphones osv. Det er i virkeligheden normen, men uden markedsføringsmillioner till at synliggøre det.

Hvor det at installere Linux for 20 år siden krævede decideret it-ekspertise, er det i dag blevet alment tilgængeligt.

Børnene kan sagtens lære at installere og forstå systemet, installere programmer, fejlsøge og vedligeholde det og endda sætte deres egne servere op.

Det giver reel teknologiforståelse og motiverende succesoplevelser. Og det gør 10+ år gamle computere brugbare igen – bæredygtigt og billigt.

En hel generation af børn og unge er blevet digitalt umyndiggjort – og med den forestående ai-storm er tidspunktet ilde valgt til reelt at være handlingslammede.

I sit opslag om indlæget skriver Nicolas på Linkedin:

Det ligner en perfekt storm: 1. AI er ved fundamentalt at ændre på den måde vi søger information på, tager beslutninger og handler på. 2. adgang til teknologi "weaponizes", navnligt af USA - et alvorligt problem for vores suverænitet. 3. 10 års indsats for at gøre næste generation til "digitale indfødte" vha. iPads har fejlet og har i stedet skabt digitale analfabeter. Mange unge har i dag ingen begreber om filsystemer, software-installation og struktureret digitalt arbejde - kompetencer der for bare 10 år siden var selvfølgelige.

Hvad kunne mon gå galt...


"Fedt skriv" som de har lavet .. bortset fra nogle småting der kan misforståes som f.eks. om vendor: lock-in "Det er per design – enhver techvirksomheds våde drøm." .. en påstand som jeg ikke er helt enig i, og det er De nok heller ikke selv når det sådan står alene.. ?

Derudover er der jo også "kommercielle virksomheder" der IKKE har incitament til at holde deres source lukket, fordi de netop favner open source konceptet. Hvis det var tilfældet ville det jo sætte f.eks. DOSL og linux distroer som Suse og Redhat i bås med "BigTech" , bare fordi der har en kommerciel del.

ok.. ved godt det er lidt flue-k****ri :-D , og grundlæggende er jeg jo 294% enig (min procentregning er ikke så god :-D) i deres grundidé, og det rækker jo i virkeligheden meget længere end bare "Skole", for det er jo nærmest er hele samfundet der er lullet i søvn af bigtech's reklameshow, og bekvemmelighedsprodukter. OG det bliver kun forstærket når det er nemmere at spørge en AI (LLM) end at tænke selv.. "Hele" IT branchen er blevet sneblinde af bigtech, og man får f.eks. ikke en Microsoft certifisering hvis man kan de rigtige (microsoft-)ord (altså man har ladet sig enrette på microsoft kurser etc), og det tror jeg er basis for den blindhed overfor alt andet end "the microsoft way" og bigtech services..


Links Nicolas' opslag på linked in Opslaget på skole monitor