Given this fair use argument that the work is probably transformative enough here's what I'll be doing next. I'll take the Windows and Office source code, run it through a decompiler and then train a neural network on that output. This sequence of steps should be at least as transformative of Microsoft's copyright as what Copilot is doing with the open-source corpus, probably much more so. I will then use that neural network to write patches for ReactOS and WINE. Since those projects are very weary of interaction with Microsoft copyrighted works could Microsoft Legal please publicly state their assurance that all this is perfectly legal use of their copyrights? Maybe that would help convince people.
Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot
31–40 of 173 posts
Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are putting up code on GitHub to which you don’t have all the rights you’re actually in violation of their TOS and you are violating the rights of other copyright holders. I understand this is common and may not violate community norms or expectations but it is technically a license violation on multiple fronts. Contributors who add to existing GitHub projects are providing the same license to GitHub as the pr…
But legally, they can't provide such a license. So GitHub can't have that license, surely, because they never had the legal authority to bestow it upon Github.
That was a problem before copilot though. And copyright holders have and will continue to have the right to send DMCA take-down notices if they like.
Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
They technically don’t distribute any code. They show it to you in a hosted environment. It’s the user that causes a distribution. They “provide it as part of the service.”
In the same vain streaming sites don't distribute movies, they show them to, you in a hosted environment. and this argument did not hold up in court.
[deleted]
Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot
#34These agree with my conclusions- it's fair use or permitted by license, but that it remains untested (as the GPL does in a larger sense) by law. I guess in about 5 years we'll see Softbank v. GitHub CoPilot in the supreme court deciding whether ML can make transformative work.
Why do we accept that the courts are so slow? I don't understand why there isn't a drive to reform courts by accelerating outcomes by an order of magnitude, and by making outcomes not depend on wealth.
You're assuming that the speed of a court case has something to do with the wealth of the participants?
Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot
#35> If you look at the GitHub Terms of Service, no matter what license you use, you give GitHub the right to host your code and to use your code to improve their products and features. So with respect to code that’s already on GitHub, I think the answer to the question of copyright infringement is fairly straightforward. This doesn't sound right. Alice writes code, and releases it under some restrictive license (GPL, s…
If Bob is unable to give GitHub the rights that GitHub demands, then it means Bob was unable to lawfully upload the code to GitHub in the first place. You're making an argument that Bob violated GitHub's terms, not that GitHub is violating Alice's (though that may also be true).
That's moving the goalposts after the fact.
What about all of the code that existed before Microsoft purchased them and before new licease language was introduced?
Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Bob is unable to give GitHub the rights that GitHub demands, then it means Bob was unable to lawfully upload the code to GitHub in the first place. You're making an argument that Bob violated GitHub's terms, not that GitHub is violating Alice's (though that may also be true).
GitHub's primary business is hosting open source software. There's no way they are going to claim that every user who uploaded code without owning the full rights is violating their TOS.
>There's no way they are going to claim that every user who uploaded code without owning the full rights is violating their TOS.
If they're taken to court and that part of the TOS is relevant to the issue, then yes, they can and will argue exactly that.
Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot
#37> If you look at the GitHub Terms of Service, no matter what license you use, you give GitHub the right to host your code and to use your code to improve their products and features. So with respect to code that’s already on GitHub, I think the answer to the question of copyright infringement is fairly straightforward. This doesn't sound right. Alice writes code, and releases it under some restrictive license (GPL, s…
If Bob is unable to give GitHub the rights that GitHub demands, then it means Bob was unable to lawfully upload the code to GitHub in the first place. You're making an argument that Bob violated GitHub's terms, not that GitHub is violating Alice's (though that may also be true).
You’re right that Bob’s the infringer here and not GitHub. But I’m not sure where that would place the derived work that’s eventually used.
Which is the point of the article a bit. GitHub is likely not infringing but it’s also not absolving the end user of any infringement. Neat trick.
That being said I think the risk is minimal enough that I’d be pretty comfortable with using it.
Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Bob is unable to give GitHub the rights that GitHub demands, then it means Bob was unable to lawfully upload the code to GitHub in the first place. You're making an argument that Bob violated GitHub's terms, not that GitHub is violating Alice's (though that may also be true).
That's moving the goalposts after the fact. What about all of the code that existed before Microsoft purchased them and before new licease language was introduced?
TOS language is usually not grandfathered in.
Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot
#39> If you look at the GitHub Terms of Service, no matter what license you use, you give GitHub the right to host your code and to use your code to improve their products and features. So with respect to code that’s already on GitHub, I think the answer to the question of copyright infringement is fairly straightforward. This doesn't sound right. Alice writes code, and releases it under some restrictive license (GPL, s…
If Bob is unable to give GitHub the rights that GitHub demands, then it means Bob was unable to lawfully upload the code to GitHub in the first place. You're making an argument that Bob violated GitHub's terms, not that GitHub is violating Alice's (though that may also be true).
I learned here on HN that contracts are supposed to be a "meeting of minds".
And in EU, as a consumer, you can pretty much ignore most EULAs because they aren't valid if they break EU consumer protections.
Now if your interpretation is correct the idea of a meeting of minds falls completely on its face.
And, as a lot of individuals also upload their projects to GitHub, GitHub is on shaky ground there as well.
I think most EULAs have clauses like these in them but we are always told that it is because of crazy American lawyers and nothing to worry about.
If Microsoft decides to prove once and for all that we should worry about ridiculously broad claims in EULAs I think it will be hard for GitHub to continue to operate in more sane jurisdictions.
Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitHub's primary business is hosting open source software. There's no way they are going to claim that every user who uploaded code without owning the full rights is violating their TOS.
>There's no way they are going to claim that every user who uploaded code without owning the full rights is violating their TOS. If they're taken to court and that part of the TOS is relevant to the issue, then yes, they can and will argue exactly that.
Well then let's hope the judges apply the same standards as when criminals claim they wasn't aware that the money they got was being laundered through them.