Conversely, the generous olive branch of free hosting is not a blank check that allows GitHub to use the hosted code for any purpose, especially when that purpose wasn't made clear as part of the terms of the original free hosting offer.
When I uploaded my code to GitHub, it was done so with the understanding that in exchange for the hosting and bandwidth, GitHub was permitted to use the code in a set of limited ways, as spelled out in their terms of service. I understood that I was contributing to building and establishing GitHub's brand as the go-to place for open source collaboration, a brand which they have undoubtedly benefited from.
With Copilot, GitHub has extended that use in a way that was not made clear during that initial contract. Regardless of the legality of this change, it's normal and expected for some users to be "offended". This isn't "being entitled", but a legitimate response to what many perceive as a violation of the norms of this industry.
That doesn't even get to the ambiguous legal questions involved, particularly with licenses that go beyond the typical MIT/GPL licenses. Based on GitHub's statements, it sounds like any public repo was fair game. What does this mean in the context of AGPL and other more restrictive licenses?
No I am happy to pay for it, and have paid for github in the past in fact. That doesn’t mean they can change the deal on what free hosting means with out any notice or method to opt out. Paid user’s public repos were not spared from Copilot either.
The hosting of open source code on GitHub is not some completely selfless act on their part. GitHub's value proposition to commercial users is in part contributed to by the fact it is used by a lot of open source projects and for solo or hobby projects, thus breeding familiarity with the platform.
