The context is whether it extinguishes the legal protections of the owner by making the barrier to sue extraordinarily high. Conversely, if you write something that is copyright protected under the law, would you be OK with Microsoft effectively stealing that protected work and sharing it with the world without even attribution to you as the original author?
> it extinguishes the legal protections of the owner by making the barrier to sue extraordinarily high
So then it supports the sharing of code for anyone to use freely, which is the opposite of the "extinguish" strategy that microsoft did in the past.
> would you be OK with Microsoft effectively stealing that protected work
I think that copyright protections are way way to strong and I support making almost all of them useless and I support allowing people to side step copyright protections.
This is because I want more creative works to be freely useable by everyone. Especially for AI purposes, which is a highly transformative and powerful usecase.
So, are you saying people should only obey the laws they agree with when those people feel they're morally justified higher than those who voted for the laws in the first place, because it's your opinion to do so or did I not grok what you are saying you support?
> So, are you saying people should only obey the laws
Depends on what the law is.
Also, this may not even be illegal. Maybe this is just a legal loophole, and people are obeying the law.
In which case I am very happy that Microsoft found a completely legal loophole that will cause more code to be shared.
So by " side step copyright protections", we could just say that this is a completely legal loophole that has the effect of allowing more code to be shared but does not overrule other laws.
