211–220 of 734 posts
Calling it “public” code feels like doublespeak. It’s most definitely NOT public domain code — it only happens to be hosted on GitHub and browsable ( but not copyable ) by people. “Source available for viewing” is very different from “public property” as the phrase is commonly understood: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property
If the training set contains verbatim (A)GPL code does this mean that Copilot also should be distributed by Microsoft under GPL? Because without it Copilot (as it is distributed by Microsoft) couldn't be built, wouldn't it make it a derivative work of GPL'd code (and obviously every other license)? I see a lot of people comparing human learning to machine learning in the comments, but there is a huge difference - we…
No, see Authors Guild v. Google. Even without a license or permission, fair use permits the mass scanning of books, the storage of the content of those books, and rendering verbatim snippets of those books. The Google Books site is not a derivative work of the millions of authors they copied from, and if they did copy any coincidentally GPL, AGPL, or creative commons copyleft work, the fair use exception applies befo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, see Authors Guild v. Google. Even without a license or permission, fair use permits the mass scanning of books, the storage of the content of those books, and rendering verbatim snippets of those books. The Google Books site is not a derivative work of the millions of authors they copied from, and if they did copy any coincidentally GPL, AGPL, or creative commons copyleft work, the fair use exception applies befo…
> By comparison, Copilot is even more obviously fair use. Not sure I see it that way. If I take your hard work that you clearly marked with a GPL license and then make money from it, not quite directly, but very closely, how is that fair use? Or legal? Copying and storing a book isn't recreating another book from it. Copilot is creating new stuff from the contents of the "books" in this case. Edit: I misunderstood fa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a decent bit of caselaw indicating that computers reading and using a copyrighted work simply "don't count" in terms of copyright infringement -- only humans can infringe copyright. This article[0] does a pretty good job of summarizing the rationale that the courts have provided. My (non-lawyer) take is that GitHub is pushing this just half a step farther -- if computers can consume copyrighted material, and…
I don't doubt that an army of lawyers has poured over this but they have size on their side: the cost of litigation vs potential revenue will be a massive factor. Edit: > There's a decent bit of caselaw indicating that computers reading and using a copyrighted work simply "don't count" in terms of copyright infringement. That means their computer can read any code it wants, do whatever it wants with the code, then th…
I would be shocked if GitHub's lawyers didn't argue that using copyrighted material as training data for an AI model is highly transformative. There may be snippets available from the original but they are completely divorced from their original context and virtually unrecognizable unless they happen to be famous like the Quake inverse square root algorithm. And I think GitHub's lawyers would also argue that Copilot's use does not affect the _original_ market -- e.g. it does not hurt Quake's sales if their algorithm is anonymously used in a probably totally unrelated codebase.
Your counterexample would probably fail both tests -- it's not transformative use if your software hands out complete pieces of copyrighted software, and it would definitely affect the market if Copilot gave me the entire source code of Quake for my own game.
[0]: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors
I'm a programmer and also studied law for some time. These stories make me - once more - realize the old adage: "Possession is nine tenths of the law." Don't host that code in the cloud (or a better term, someone else's dirty bucket). What happened to developers hosting stuff on their own website!?
This means that also all illegally leaked codes from Apple, CDPR, Intel, NSA and Microsoft leaks are used in the models? iBoot, Witcher 3? Gwent? NSA backdoors? Does the copilot still learn from new repos? Can I post github enterprise code publicly to let it learn from it? Serious answers only please
Calling it “public” code feels like doublespeak. It’s most definitely NOT public domain code — it only happens to be hosted on GitHub and browsable ( but not copyable ) by people. “Source available for viewing” is very different from “public property” as the phrase is commonly understood: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property
Isn't that what autopilot is doing here? The system is merely learning how to code, and then applying it's learnings on other programming problems. It's not like it's writing software to specifically compete with other programs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By comparison, Copilot is even more obviously fair use. Not sure I see it that way. If I take your hard work that you clearly marked with a GPL license and then make money from it, not quite directly, but very closely, how is that fair use? Or legal? Copying and storing a book isn't recreating another book from it. Copilot is creating new stuff from the contents of the "books" in this case. Edit: I misunderstood fa…
> If I take your hard work that you clearly marked with a GPL license and then make money from it, not quite directly, but very closely, how is that fair use? Or legal? You can wipe your ass with the GPL license if your use of the product falls within Fair Use. You can actually take snippets from commercial movies and post them onto YouTube if your YouTube video is transformative enough for your usage to be considere…
Is Copilot fair use? It's reading code, generating other code (some verbatim) and making money from it all while not having to release its source code to the world?
> That doesn't mean that GitHub has to redistribute Copilot under GPL
I wasn't saying that was the case: some of the code that Copilot used may not allow redistribution under GPL.
But let's say that all of the code it scanned was GPL for the sake of argument. Why would they not have to distribute their Copilot source yet, if I use it to generate some code, I'd have to distribute mine?
My spidey-sense it tingling at that one!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I, as a human being, have trained by reading code, much of which is covered by licenses that are somehow not compatible with code I'm writing. Am I violating licenses? As someone who has taught students in ICT a quick rule of thumb was that I picked a piece of text that I suspected, wrapped it in doublequotes and put it into a search engine. 9/10 times - possibly more - of the times I had that feeling it was true.…
It’s not AI it is ML. GPT-3 is a very large ML model. It does not reason. It’s a statistical machine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By comparison, Copilot is even more obviously fair use. Not sure I see it that way. If I take your hard work that you clearly marked with a GPL license and then make money from it, not quite directly, but very closely, how is that fair use? Or legal? Copying and storing a book isn't recreating another book from it. Copilot is creating new stuff from the contents of the "books" in this case. Edit: I misunderstood fa…
If you view GPL code with your browser would that mean that your browser now has to be GPL as well? In the sense that copilot is not much different than a browser for Stack Overflow with some automation, why would it need to be GPLed? Your own code on the other hand…
Stackoverflow on the other hand is much trickier question...