Agreed. Something else apparent from the comments is that people seem to think that some things are copyrighted, and some aren't, and that copilot would be better if it could avoid copyrighted code. Actually, essentially ALL code is copyrighted, and was so the moment it was written, and someone owns that copyright [1]. People only start noticing copyright when the terms of how that copyrighted content is licensed affects them. I think people resent reciprocal licenses like LGPL/GPL because the principle of "share and share alike" that they implement comes with real responsibilities and consequences for the user of the code, while they believe that non-reciprocal licenses (BSD) can be ignored with less serious consequences.
But the show-stopping problem is that copilot is sometimes producing code that is more than fair use of other code that, and is unable to attribute the code or identify how that code is licensed. It is copilot's (Microsoft's) fault that it auto-generates legal minefields, not the person who made an informed decision about licensing their own code.
In spite of the likely downvoting, I'll say that people should be grateful for reciprocal licenses not just because they were and are the foundation of free software (as you point out), but because they shine a light on what it means to license code, and how we are forced to revisit the difference between copyright and licensing when a reciprocal license is violated.
Copyright is our current framework for rewarding creativity and encouraging innovation. It fundamentally depends on the assumption that protection of creative works is possible and feasible. That assumption is what's under assault by copilot and AI systems in general.
It's easy to forget that protection of creative works is only a means to end, not the goal or ideal state.
I believe AI systems will be able to help us build a new system that can track attribution of ideas and identify predecessor works from derivative products. This attribution could then form the foundation of a reward system. This is just one possible future.
But the show-stopping problem is that copilot is sometimes producing code that is more than fair use of other code that, and is unable to attribute the code or identify how that code is licensed. It is copilot's (Microsoft's) fault that it auto-generates legal minefields, not the person who made an informed decision about licensing their own code.
In spite of the likely downvoting, I'll say that people should be grateful for reciprocal licenses not just because they were and are the foundation of free software (as you point out), but because they shine a light on what it means to license code, and how we are forced to revisit the difference between copyright and licensing when a reciprocal license is violated.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention