The OP is conflicted by wanting to share code under a permissive OSS license but regretting how this is benefitting certain users they dislike. I understand this, but at least it burns both ways (look at Microsoft's VS Code vs. Cursor and the other forks).

The way "real" OSS licenses (by OSI) allow use for any purpose has been a major reason the movement has succeeded and for that it's worth putting up with some users doing stuff the authors might not like.

Is the implication that GitHub can't just go to your website and train on your code? It's open source code, I'm sure they're casting a wider net.

"If the project is under an open source license, it means that everyone can share a copy – even on GitHub – of the licensed material under certain conditions."

This is disputable. GitHub demands so many additional rights from the uploader, in particular, using the code for AI training. This violates the attribution part of all OSS licenses, so only the original copyright holder can upload to GitHub and give GitHub these rights.

> since GitHub may not respect the terms of licensed code that is hosted on their servers, not uploading the code of others there is, in fact, a deeply ethical choice.

Feels like a moot point, this goes for anything you upload anywhere (as reprehensible as it is). Perhaps all music and movie clips should be taken off YouTube lest someone train an AI on them? Analog video makes a return to stop the evil consequences of digital training?

The underlying reasoning seems to be that agreeing to GitHub TOS may put an uploader of open source code in breach of the license. But, uploading code to GitHub being convenient, this has been ignored. Is this so?

With me you are speaking to the choir. I moved to gitlab + anon ftp.

If gitlab starts doing the same as github, I will delete all my items from gitlab and use only anon ftp.