I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot • Hacker News Board

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#221

Post by lifthrasiir » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

dmitriid wrote: post #108

lifthrasiir wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Github does not own the Arctic Vault, there is an independent company behind it [1]. Given its purpose as a long-term archival, it is likely that exemptions to the copyright for (library) archival can apply here. [EDIT: This is probably not true, see the reply for the reason.] [1] https://www.piql.com/awa/

> Github does not own the Arctic Vault, there is an independent company behind it Github are the ones doing all the archiving. So, in essence, they do own that. Piql are just the ones providing the storage: it's a commercial for-profit entity employed for backup by another commercial for-profit entity.

It is technically true, but the Arctic World Archive specifically "accepts deposits that are globally significant for the benefit of future generations, as well as information that is significant to your organisation or to you individually" [1]. So it doesn't accept any data (at least as far as I see) and the Github archive should also have met this criteria.

By the way, my initial statement that it may qualify for copyright exemptions turned out to be false for a different reason. They only apply when the library and/or archive in question is open to the public, and the Github Arctic Vault isn't. Thus I think it's actually a Github's generic usage grant in the ToS [2] that allows for the Vault. The Copilot is, of course, very different to anything described in the ToS.

[1] https://arcticworldarchive.org/contribute/

[2] https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o...

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#222

Post by yashap » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

blihp wrote: post #214

yashap wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bigger concern for many is that if you USE copilot, you’ll unintentionally copy code with licences that your company really, REALLY does not want to copy. For example, here’s copilot copying some very famous GPL code: https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309?s=2... And basically every software company avoids GPL like the plague, due to its strong copyleft conditions.

Sure, but that's a different end of the issue than I was referring to. I was pointing out that just taking code off of github wouldn't avoid the use case. Any published code from any public source is likely to eventually be used this way by someone.

Yeah, I agree with your point that “if you publish content to the internet, expect it to be used in ways you don’t intend, or even permit.” Just pointing out that a lot of the concerns are not “GitHub is stealing my code for use in Copilot,” but “using GitHub Copilot in my proprietary software is a massive risk/liability.”

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#223

Post by ImprobableTruth » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #177

_ofdw wrote: post #155

Feels like everyone is missing the point: Copilot will ultimately serve to weaken the arguments in support of software patents and copyright. That can only be a good thing for society (though perhaps not for rent seekers).

Surprised I had to scroll so far to find this, given how copyleft and straight-up anti-IP so much of the open source community is. I think a lot more people on this site (and in the FOSS community in general) would be on board with Copilot if it respected viral licenses, e.g. if it had a way of inferring that the code it was copying verbatim were GPL-3 and warned the user that including it in their project would requ…

But that's literally the issue. The only form of intellectual property that is being damaged by this is copyleft.

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#224

Post by pdonis » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

lacker wrote: post #34

I thought this was a pretty good thread (by an ex-Wikipedia lawyer) on Twitter about the IP meaning of Copilot. https://twitter.com/luis_in_brief/status/1410242882523459585... And this is a longer article about how IP and AI interact: https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-2/copyright... I am not a lawyer, but I am capable of summarizing the thoughts of lawyers, so my take is that in general, fair use allow…

> nobody cares if my ten-line "how to invert a binary tree" snippet is the same as someone else's.

Maybe nobody cares about that, but the problem is that Github's automated tool is not telling you what code it shows you is actually an exact copy of existing code, or how much of that existing code is being copied, or whether the existing code is licensed, or, if it is licensed, whether your copying is in accordance with the license or not. And without that information you can't possibly know whether what you are doing is legal or ethical. Sure, you could try to guess, but that sort of thing is not supposed to rely on guessing.

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#225

Post by ForHackernews » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

nomercy400 wrote: post #146

This is exactly why people have issue with Github's Copilot. It's not the technology, but the fact that any code you pushed to GitHub in the past 13 years is now 'accessible' to anyone. Private repo? Paid account? Deleted repo five years ago? Deleted repo today? Proprietary code? Embarassing commits? Accidental API keys or passwords in commits? All 'available'. It feels like the entirety of GitHub was just 'leaked',…

> Would you push your code to a service if you knew it could be read by anyone one to ten years from now? Even if you paid to keep it a secret?

I'm old enough to remember when "assume anything you put in cleartext online is public" was received wisdom. We were taught that if you want to keep something private, keep it encrypted on your own local media. Or, failing that, at least on a server you control.

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#226

Post by judge2020 » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

kuon wrote: post #127

I've given thousands of hours to open source projects, I really think open source is a pillar of modern society. So you would think I am all for something like copilot, but no. At first I thought this was a great feature, because easier access to code, but after some reflection, I am also very skeptical. I am able to make my code open source, because I can make a living out of it, and I have a lot of open source code…

> but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me.

No I do not. Even strictly proprietary code can be copied and used in a for-profit way without approval as long as it qualifies for fair use.

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#227

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

dathinab wrote: post #138

doytch wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but there's also a murkier middle option. I used to work for a company that made a lot of money from its software patents but I was in a division that worked heavily in open-source code. We were forbidden to contribute to the high-value patented code because it was impossible to know whether we were "tainted" by knowledge of GPL code.

No you are not, guaranteed (I think, not a lawyer). At least from a copyright point of few. TL;DR: Having right, and having a easy defense in a law suite are not the same. BUT separating it makes defending any law-suite against them because of copyright and patent law much easier. It also prevents any employee from "copying GPL(or similar) code verbatim from memory"(1) (or even worse the clipboard) sure the employee…

[deleted]

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#228

Post by jbluepolarbear » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

Regardless on how I feel about this usage, I’d be more concerned with the very real possibility of introducing vulnerabilities this way. Say the copilot takes a snippet from a code base. That snippet had a vulnerability and was fixed by the team that understood the what and how. How does that vulnerability get fixed? Does copilot let the user know months later that snippet used actually is very bad and that the company that originally implemented fixed it and you should too?

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#229

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

_ofdw wrote: post #155

Feels like everyone is missing the point: Copilot will ultimately serve to weaken the arguments in support of software patents and copyright. That can only be a good thing for society (though perhaps not for rent seekers).

It is certainly fascinating to see people start running away from "information wants to be free" and other Free Software principles full tilt when, all of a sudden, it's their livelihoods that are on the line. Unless my recollection is off, the GPL was never the goal of the original Free Software movement; it was merely a tool to get to the end state where all code becomes available for use by anyone for any reason without cost or restriction.

I am reminded of a line from Terry Pratchett's Going Postal in relation to a hacker-like organization called the Smoking GNU, "...[A]ll property is theft, except mine...", which I thought was rather painfully apt in describing what FOSS evolved into after becoming popular.

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#230

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #111

jcelerier wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your example is the very specific scenario where you're attempting to replicate an entire program, API, etc., to identical specifications. That's obviously not fair use. You're not dealing with little bits and pieces, you're dealing with an entire finished product. No - google's 9 lines of sorting algorithm (iirc) copied from Oracle's implementation were not considered fair use in the Google / Oracle debacle. Likew…

Sorry, but you're not recalling correctly. :) The Supreme Court decided Google v. Oracle was fair use. It was 3 months ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_... That's the highest form of precedent, the question has now been effectively settled (unless Congress ever changes the law). Edit: added a dummy hash to end of URL so HN parses it correctly (thanks @thewakalix below)

[deleted]