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

Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot

fossa.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 173 posts

Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot

#131

Post by axiosgunnar »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #88
Animats wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A third party who finds their GPL code on Github but is not themselves a user of Github has a right of action. They're not bound by Microsoft's terms.

> is not themselves a user of Github Is it that widely scoped? Can't we narrow it to "A third party who finds their GPL code on Github but has not uploaded that specific code to Github themselves has a right of action limited to that specific code." Just because I created a github account once and agreed to the TOS doesn't mean that I agree to let others upload my code to github, where would that scope end. Could som…

You are correct

Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot

#132

Post by randombits0 »

Purely functional expression is not subject to copyright. If you claimed that your code was used to train an AI among thousands/millions of other code snippets and somehow your creative expression came out the other side, I would suggest what you are trying to claim is a purely functional expression and not subject to any meaningful copyright. And I would be correct.

Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot

#133

Post by mewse »

btilly wrote: post #89
tyingq wrote: post #3

“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,” Downing says. “So with respect to code that’s already on GitHub, I think the answer to the question of copyright infringement is fairly straightforward.” I don't know if it's really that straightforward. The TOS includes snippets like th…

I don't know if it's really that straightforward. It gets worse. To the extent that it is that straightforward, the correct takeaway is that you do not have permission to include someone else's GPLed code in your Github repository. And that to the extent that GitHub relies on that permission in using the code that they host, they are liable for potential copyright claims from copyright owners that they have no relati…

> To the extent that it is that straightforward, the correct takeaway is that you do not have permission to include someone else's GPLed code in your Github repository

Or to put that differently;

Using GitHub’s built-in “Fork” feature is probably often a violation of GitHub’s terms of use.

Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot

#135

Post by wolverine876 »

pc86 wrote: post #34
wolverine876 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I meant those as two different issues.

Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot

#136

Post by lucideer »

pc86 wrote: post #22
jefftk wrote: post #10

> 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).

IANAL but having read the ToS, I think the author is failing to distinguish between "Your Content" and "Content You Uploaded".

GH's ToS don't prevent Bob uploading content Bob doesn't own. The ToS does require Bob to grant GH a licence to use any content uploaded that Bob owns. It doesn't prevent Bob uploading others' content nor does it ask Bob to grant GH licence to it.

---

If you're reading the ToS yourself, the keyword to look out for is "Your Content", which is defined in their Definitions section as such:

> “User-Generated Content” is Content, written or otherwise, created or uploaded by our Users.

> "Your Content" is Content that you create or own.

The licence grant to GH is only on "Your Content", not on "User-Generated Content" (i.e. content you upload, which may be yours or someone else's)

Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot

#137

Post by lucideer »

SethTro wrote: post #4

I find the first argument, that if you're project is in GitHub then they have the right to train in it, weak. Plenty of projects are hosted elsewhere but have been mirrored by random users (e.g. not the copyright holder) to GitHub

There's a general false assumption at the very beginning of this article that users own the code they upload to Github (I can freely & legally upload some code I forked from a FOSS project elsewhere).

Pretty concerning that this fairly obvious oversight was missed by an IP lawyer consulted by a platform apparently dedicated to managing open-source code.

Github's own ToS makes explicit & careful distinction between code you upload and code you own.

Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot

#138

Post by lucideer »

lakecresva wrote: post #74
heavyset_go wrote: post #69

> “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,” Downing says. “So with respect to code that’s already on GitHub, I think the answer to the question of copyright infringement is fairly straightforward.” GitHub's Terms of Service doesn't override licensing terms.

It doesn't have to, the rights you grant Github when you agree to the ToS and upload your work exist independent of any rights you might grant as part of the repo's license.

> upload your work

This only applies to work you have exclusive ownership over (and GH's ToS are explicit about this). You don't (legally can't) grant GH any rights to work you don't own. But you can still upload it (e.g. forked open-source code).

Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot

#139

Post by ghoward »

dmitrygr wrote: post #85
guitarbill wrote: post #9

It would be nice if we moved from a copyright discussion to an ethical one, since it could be years until the law is even tested. Is it ethical to do this, when some licenses are clearly chosen because of e.g. attribution or sharing improvements? Did Microsoft/GitHub consider the ethical implications, for example a chilling effect on code being open sourced in future (i.e. people choosing not to open source stuff so…

I wonder if one could enforce a license's "this code may not be used to train any ML model of any sort for any reason without prior permission".

I made a series of licenses that attempt to do that while still remaining within current legal bounds. https://yzena.com/licenses/

Re: Analyzing the legal implications of GitHub Copilot

#140

Post by dsr_ »

eitland wrote: post #114
lakecresva wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that someone who published their work under the GPL hasn't thereby given consumers the right to put the repo on github. If the rights Github asks for in their ToS can be construed as a subset of the rights granted by the GPL, Github is just another GPL licensee. Unless they violate the conditions of the license, they're just utilizing their GPL rights.

> Github is just another GPL licensee. Unless they violate the conditions of the license, they're just utilizing their GPL rights. And here is exactly the problem. GitHub seems to be copying copyrighted code left and right and pretend they made it! No attribution, no license. They are of course allowed to let their AI study the code, but as "employer" of that AI GitHub/Microsoft has a responsibility if that AI breaks…

With GPL rights come GPL responsibilities.
Post reply on HN