Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

thelig.ht

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 545 posts

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

#531

Post by jozvolskyef »

0-_-0 wrote: post #526
jozvolskyef wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? The page you link offers three definitions[1], and all of them require an infinite tape. You could argue that a stack is missing in my simplified model of the human brain, which would be correct. I used the simple model in allusion to the Chinese room thought experiment which doesn't require anything more than a dictionary. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness#Formal_def...

Turing completeness applies to models of computation, not hardware. Otherwise, nothing would be Turing-complete because infinite memory doesn't exist in the real world. Just read the first sentence of what you linked to: In computability theory, several closely related terms are used to describe the computational power of a computational system (such as an abstract machine or programming language)

Thank you for pointing that out, I was indeed wrong to assume it was used to classify hardware rather than a model.

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

#532

Post by jefftk »

bogwog wrote: post #527
jefftk wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> open source and free for non-commercial use only That's not open source: https://opensource.org/osd

My definition of "open source" is that the source code is publicly available. That's it. Just because that organization got their hands on a premium domain name doesn't mean they get to decide what that term means. You shouldn't assume random strangers online know that you're referring to OSI's definition when you say "open source".

> My definition of "open source" is that the source code is publicly available. That's it.

If I defined "open source" to mean that changes the source code must be released publicly, it's going to be pretty hard for me to talk to all the other people who already use "open source" to mean something else. There is already a standard term for the source code being publicly available: "source available": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software. You're also welcome to invent and attempt to popularize any alternative term you want, but using idiosyncratic definitions makes discussion less clear.

> Just because that organization got their hands on a premium domain name doesn't mean they get to decide what that term means.

The OSI didn't just claim "opensource.org" -- the folks behind it coined (https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...), introduced, and popularized the term "open source" over two decades ago. From the beginning they have used the same definition, which was derived from the Debian project's Free Software Guidelines.

They are not also not the only ones who use the term that way. Wikipedia has "Licenses which only permit non-commercial redistribution or modification of the source code for personal use only are generally not considered as open-source licenses" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

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

#533

Post by jefftk »

saurik wrote: post #447
jefftk wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> open source and free for non-commercial use only That's not open source: https://opensource.org/osd

You have said this multiple times on this thread now, but in addition to how the OSI getting to unilaterally define the technical definition of "open source" being controversial even within the software engineering community, you really need to be looking at the definition of words "descriptively" and most people seem to put even "shared source" (look but don't touch) models as subsets of the class "open source". Reg…

> the OSI getting to unilaterally define the technical definition of "open source" being controversial even within the software engineering community

I don't think this is controversial? The OSI defined the term when they introduced it, in the late 90s. When Microsoft came out with "shared source" there was a huge amount of pushback from people saying "don't think that this is open source" (ex: https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5496)

> Copilot doesn't only pick up "open source" code... it picks up any code that has been published under any reason

I agree. I'm not defending Copilot, and I think the legal questions here are interesting and tricky. My pushback here and throughout this page has been when people say non-commercial licenses are open source -- this thread started with kuon saying "I have a lot of open source code that I love to share for things like education or private stuff, but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me"

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

#534

Post by NiceWayToDoIT »

IshKebab wrote: post #492
NiceWayToDoIT wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is somehow inverse logic. Does rape victim needs authority to voice raping in order to validate it? What is there that is not solid, CoPilot is using community code that is under GPL licence therefore Microsoft should not be able to charge for CoPilot but give it for free, or not create another revenue stream.

No, a rape victim needs a solid argument, i.e. evidence. > What is there that is not solid, CoPilot is using community code that is under GPL licence therefore Microsoft should not be able to charge for CoPilot but give it for free, or not create another revenue stream. You're doing the same thing as OP by assuming that this is illegal. That had yet to be determined. It could easily be the case that this falls under…

That argument is in infinite wrong loop, it seams like a justification of rapist with kind of Stockholm syndrome.

Fair use can be drill down to following, a very simple exploit question.

Would you work for free, if someone would earn million on your own work?

if (answer===yes) {

"then let me employ you I have few ideas and I need free work that could make me wealthy."

} else {

"if no then your entire argument is pure hypocrisy, trying to justify wealth built on exploit of others" }

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

#535

Post by sneak »

saurik wrote: post #445
sneak wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you use a permissive license, it’s best you stop thinking of it as your code. You’ve set it free for everyone, and while you may retain copyright in some abstract sense, it really no longer belongs to you. That’s a good thing.

While I agree with you--in that the vast majority of people who publish code under permissive licenses actually have an implied set of "moral code" restrictions that they end up surprised people violate even though they specifically allowed such by their choice of license (implying they should have chosen a different, and likely more restrictive, license)--even permissive licenses tend to at least include "you can't…

I think hackers being possessive about sequences of uint8s is exactly as silly as claiming the number 2 as your own personal property.

Copyright is like an ABI: we made it up for convenience. It's just a construction, it isn't some inherently real thing.

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

#536

Post by lal »

foobar33333 wrote: post #420
stingraycharles wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue that this new use case is very interesting to open source and how it relates to the various licenses, and not necessarily “the point of open source”. I can imagine people being OK with their code being used as-is, and/or being modified, but not used completely out of context to train some corporate AI to inject code into commercial code based.

You can't give out something for free without limitations and then complain when someone uses it for something you didn't expect. Well you can complain but no one has to listen. Githubs use seems very in the spirit of open data and code. Using open source to help others.

Licenses explicitly are the set of permissions and limitations for someone to use the code. Even most permissive open source licenses require that you maintain an attribution with the text of the license in derivative works. Copyleft licenses and in particular the GPL put very strict requirements on what types of licenses are acceptable in any derivative works.

In literally no open source license except "do-whatever-you-want-i-dont-give-a-damn-bye"-type licenses like WTFPL are you giving something away for free without limitations. That's not even close to what open source means, at all. Open source and public domain are not synonymous terms. And in those cases where there are literally any terms in a license, use of Copilot obviously violates the terms of the license, unless the user operating Copilot goes back, finds the code Copilot is stealing from, and makes the proper attribution / otherwise ensures that they are meeting the terms of the license of the stolen code.

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

#537

Post by Jetrel »

qayxc wrote: post #278

The irony of it all is that their code will find its way into the next Common Crawl release anyway and that's used to train GPT-3, which in turn forms the basis of OpenAI Codex, which is the product that CoPilot builds on... So hosting elsewhere might not safe your code from ending up deep in the bowels of some corporate black-box ML model that occasionally regurgitates your IP if accidentally given the wrong (right?…

The real dark bit there is that if someone else posts something publicly, but your own stuff is "obscured" in some way, they may be able to (falsely) claim prior art, as the original author.

Amongst other things, hosting something on github is a public ledger of authorship.

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

#538

Post by nathias »

hfkwnfb wrote: post #496
nathias wrote: post #491

How is it different to a dev reading your code and implementing it?

If a dev reads GPL code and reimplements it then the new implementation must be GPL (within fair use).

I'm not talking about copying but learning by reading code, you then synthesize the code you read surely you don't expect any copyright law to apply in such cases.

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

#539

Post by okamiueru »

pabs3 wrote: post #450
okamiueru wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recognise your comments from several different threads, and I'm wondering if you might not be working against your own ideals. The GPL license is intended to persuade other sources to share their contributions when building on top, which I assume is what you would like to see happen. If everything is GPL then everything is open source, everyone can use anything, including training AI methods, etc. The problem posed…

The GPL isn't about sharing contributions back to the project, but ensuring the end-users have the source code and permission to use, modify and share it.

Did you mean to say that "GPL isn't just about sharing ..."? It most certainly is part of the intention behind GPL. Changes to GPL software must be disclosed and made open source.

If you as an end user want to modify the source code for your own use, then that is fine. If you want to distribute it, you must state the changes, and you must also do so for any code it is linked with. The original maintainers are then also free to incorporate said changes should they chose.

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

#540

Post by davidjytang »

breck wrote: post #528
davidjytang wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words about imaginary wizards. So not imaginary wizards then. What should be regulated? Is it nothing? Does your statement become "Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words"?

> Does your statement become "Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words"? Yes. Your lungs is a tree that needs healthy air. Your brain is a tree that needs healthy ideas. When people are not free to clean the ideawaves, they fill with pollution, and that is where we find ourselves.

By analogy, are you saying government should not regulate and protect air quality?
Post reply on HN