How do people think developers learn?! Many probably recite copyrighted code almost verbatim on the reg. Storm in a tea cup.
All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot
421–430 of 734 posts
Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot
#422Ok, my curiosity has been fired here... I have conjured up two scenarios here: Let's say I use copilot to generate a bunch of code for an app, something substantial, and it regurgitates a load of bits and pieces from many sources it got from GitHub, I'd assume there won't be any attribution in it... it will be as if Copilot made the code itself (I know it sort of does but lets not split hairs!). I'm guessing the prev…
"I'm guessing the prevailing theory (from GiitHub anyway) is that I'm legitimately allowed to do this." No. Copilot is a technical preview. In the final release, if it reproduces code verbatim, it'll tell you and present the correct license.
How will it find the “correct” license?
Will it check the LICENSE file? Simply having a LICENSE file is not a declaration that all the code in that repo is under that LICENSE.
What if specific lines/files are specified to be under different licenses?
What if the publisher of the repo is publishing it under an incorrect license in bad faith?
Will github be responsible if it tells me the wrong license?
Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But in this case it is obvious that the AI isn't writing the code - at least not all the time, it is instead choosing what to copy - verbatim. I still don't see any problem with that. If it's larger sections (e.g. entire NON-TRIVIAL function bodies), those can be filtered or correctly attributed after inference. So that's just a technicality. Smaller snippets and trivial or mechanical implementations (generated cod…
what about lines such as Idxs[i] += (Imm >> ((i * HalfLaneElts) % 8)) & ((1 > 2); qint32 val = d + (((fromX > 8); even if it's one line, it likely took some non-negligible thinking time from the programmer
What about E = mc^2 ?
Mathematics and physics equations are not copyrightable.
Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. For commercial use and derivative works? Authors won't incorporate snippets of books into new works unless they're reviews. Copilot is different.
> Authors won't incorporate snippets of books into new works Of course they do, previous works are quoted all the time.
...with attribution.
Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot
#425Does gtp-3 have to attribute mankind for reading all of the internet?
What about deep learning-artwork trained on google searches?
We enter a new era…
Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot
#426Could this be the beginning of the true test of open source licenses? My understanding is that there has never been a ruling by a court to give precedence to the validity or scope of any open source license. I can see a class action suit coming on behalf of all GPL licensed code authors.
What ? There have been plenty of GPL cases defended in court. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigati...
All of the copyright cases were settled, so no precedence is set. Open source as a contract has been ruled legal, and licensors can sue for breach of contract - which is not the same as copyright infringement.
I think my point still stands.
Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot
#427What about the other half of the law: If your copilot code takes from public source but produces something that is patented, can you be sued by a patent troll? (Yes.)
Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot
#428One question I haven't really see talked about is: when you get a suggestion through copilot and save the document, who is the author of the document?
I think this may be the crux of this whole kerfuffle.
If you're the author isn't it on you if you infringe?
If not then perhaps you and GitHub/Microsoft share authorship/culpability?
Who has the copyright to a piece of text generated by a tool? Or art generated by a model?
Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot
#429If 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…
If Github hosts AGPL code, does that mean that github's own code must be AGPL? Obviously not. What's the difference? There's no point to copilot without training data, some but not all of the training data was (A)GPL. There's no point to github without hosting code, some but not all of the code it hosts is A(GPL). The code in either cases is data or content, it has not actually been incorporated into the copilot or g…
> If Github hosts AGPL code, does that mean that github's own code must be AGPL? Obviously not. What's the difference?
GitHub's TOS include granting them a separate license (i.e., not the GPL) to reproduce the GPL code in limited ways that are necessary for providing the hosting service. This means commonsense things like displaying the source text on a webpage, copying the data between servers, and so on.
Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot
#430Could this be the beginning of the true test of open source licenses? My understanding is that there has never been a ruling by a court to give precedence to the validity or scope of any open source license. I can see a class action suit coming on behalf of all GPL licensed code authors.
GitHub used code that wasn't under any license at all, just publicly visible. Their claim is not that the license allows what they're doing, but that they do not need a license.
which is a different issue to my point, but still very valid. what terms are implied if no license is specified? I would argue attribution should be expected if used, but I also wouldn't go near any code without a specific license attached as there's no express permission given - just because a license isn't disclosed doesn't mean it isn't there.
you can't go copying anything and everything just because nobody has told you that you can't. and I feel that's part of the purpose behind GPL. force a license on derivative code so that at least there's clear rights moving forwards.