141–150 of 734 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I guess then, the first thing they should have done, is trained it to understand licenses, and used that as a first principle for how they built the system?
Is it a derivative work of GPL licensed work if it is trained on the license? Is the GPL license text under GPL?
So playing devil's advocate. What if the courts just don't care, and rule that copying code verbatim is not a crime because you didn't copy it, and copilot is not a human so it can't commit crimes. What's the net effect of a system that draws upon all public code repos? It sounds... net beneficial to society? On the plus side, a large body of work effectively becomes public domain. On the negative side, copyleft lice…
I can setup my drone to detect me and attempt to crash into me. AI would be quite poor, probably would attempt to crash at any human. Would it be my fault it didn't crash into me and someone lost eyes?
Can I setup torrent box that automatically downloads and seeds all detected links from public trackers? Would I be responsible for it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Code (co)created with Copilot has to follow all the licenses of the source (heh) code. This generally means at the very least automatically including in projects getting help from Copilot a copy of all the licenses involved, and attribution for all the people the code of which Copilot has been trained on. (Not sure for the cases where there is no license and therefore normal copyright applies, but AFAIK this isn't th…
So I guess then, the first thing they should have done, is trained it to understand licenses, and used that as a first principle for how they built the system?
This is why I relicensed my code [1] yesterday to a license I wrote [2], which is designed to poison the well for machine learning. [1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2021/07/poisoning-github-copilot-and... [2]: https://yzena.com/yzena-network-license/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it would stiffle NLP research immensely and we likely wouldn't see anything better than gpt3 for years if such restrictions are put in place.
You're basically seeing how some people would have had open source play out. You can look at and use the code but not to make money or in any other way that I personally disapprove of. This is a world where open source would have ended up being pretty much irrelevant.
I definitely understand why people pick a license that disallows use someone doesn't agree with. Imagine baking cookies for your friends, and one of them reselling them. The material effect is the same to you, you gave away your cookies, but sometimes you make/do something for a certain group of people and not for other to make a profit of your work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I guess then, the first thing they should have done, is trained it to understand licenses, and used that as a first principle for how they built the system?
Is it a derivative work of GPL licensed work if it is trained on the license? Is the GPL license text under GPL?
> Version 3, 29 June 2007
> Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. https://fsf.org/>
> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
This is why I relicensed my code [1] yesterday to a license I wrote [2], which is designed to poison the well for machine learning. [1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2021/07/poisoning-github-copilot-and... [2]: https://yzena.com/yzena-network-license/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copilot is a commercial paid service that generates money for Microsoft
Yeah, that bit I realise but the point I was getting at is this: if I take someone else's code, use chunks of it in my app, say that it's mine and make money from it is that not illegal? Or, at least in violation of the license? Superficially at least, Copilot (from my understanding) is "copying" code, letting me use it in my app, and making money from it. I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. Let's be clear, I…
- Only a very small proportion of Copilot generated code is reproduced verbatim, so if you specifically built a product just from copied-verbatim code, your act of selecting and combining those pieces of copyrighted code would be creating a derivative work.
- GitHub is not selling the copyrighted code, they are selling the tool itself. Google is literally the same thing: you could theoretically create a product by googling for prefixes of copyrighted code and then copying the remainder straight out of the search results. It's you who would be violating copyright, not google.