This is a dumb take. They're both equally untrustworthy. VSCode has an insane amount of telemetry turned on, ChatGPT is monitoring everything you type, and GitHub was abused to train a LLM. Microsoft and Google have both shown they would sell your data in a heartbeat to make a quick buck.
Ehh, I think this is also a bad take.
Turn off telemetry, delete ChatGPT conversations, and I like having an LLM for GitHub
versus
Give us all your personal data and we're sharing it with ad partners, your personal data is our number one product and secondary products are only made to support the first endeavor.
> I like having an LLM for GitHub
That LLM was trained on FOSS software that others like myself wrote and did not consent to have used in such a manner. Even if you're also a FOSS contributor and you're fine with it, I'm not.
So you like it, but you're not the party whose consent matters. You're the customer consuming the laundered goods from the fence.
OSS people complaining about licenses while simultaneously ignoring the license they granted Github is peak irony. I'm totally fine with it, it's why I do it, I don't need accolades and I'm not straddling a user with legal agreements, that's not freedom in my mind.
GitHub only has the FOSS license because the TOS applies only to the owner of the repo, but contributors to the code in the repo are not required to agree to the TOS. None of the popular FOSS licenses except CC0 grant rights which allow LLM training — they all require attribution at least and the copyleft licenses require reciprocity (when the copied code is substantial enough for the license to apply).
Wrong, you cannot commit to github without first agreeing to the TOS. Every user does it. Y'all are gonna get beat up in court and I think it's going to be hilarious.
The point is that there are repositories on Github that contain commits from non-Github-users. For example, not every single commit to the Linux kernel has been made by a Github user, but there is a mirror at https://github.com/torvalds/linux .