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

GitHub Copilot is generally available

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 796 posts

Re: GitHub Copilot is generally available

#601

Post by colechristensen »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #305
colechristensen wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think copilot is pretty clearly copyright violation and in violation of licenses of "public" code. People uploading code to github are bound to the licenses just the same as anyone, unless you're the legitimate owner of all of the copyright in a codebase, you can't give change the license provisions by accepting a ToS. I don't think it's really that murky, these models contain and have been shown to reproduce copyr…

what's the difference between allowing you to search github and find a code snippet, and having a fancy autocomplete system search github and find a code snippet for you? seems to me anyone agreeing to the ToS should expect their code to show up on other peoples screens as search results really the question is a matter of degree, is copying your nested for-loop iterating through a row oriented matrix really a unique…

When I look at github code, it's only stored in my brain and personal notes, not packaged into a product as a trained ML model.

When I reproduce code based on something I looked up, I do indeed have to be careful not to explicitly copy sizable chunks, somethings are obvious and the only way to do things, but not everything.

What users and copyright holders expect from humans does not automatically apply to marginally similar situations with computers and ML applications. For example: if I'm walking down the street I don't mind at all if someone recognizes me or a stranger remembers seeing me later, I'm actually rather bothered if someone (or the state) is running facial recognition software and recording every time it see me or anyone else walking down the street.

Re: GitHub Copilot is generally available

#602

Post by gouda-gouda »

After using Copilot with Rust for a few months, I’m constantly impressed with how accurate it can be. Sometimes I catch myself pausing to think about the solution, then all of the sudden copilot just writes the implementation for me.

Having a type checker is critical for this, though. When I code Ruby I’m much more skeptical of Copilots suggestions.

Re: GitHub Copilot is generally available

#603

Post by tamrix »

xcskier56 wrote: post #48
ilikehurdles wrote: post #18

I hope I never again have to work on a codebase/language where copilot would be worth subscribing to.

Nonsense. I've been using it to write tests, and it does a phenomenal job. If I write out the positive case, it will suggest the negative case and help me through the various permutations. This has by-far been the most useful part of co-pilot so far. It's nothing I couldn't do myself, but just makes my job that much easier and quicker

Maybe try property based testing instead?

Re: GitHub Copilot is generally available

#604

Post by blagie »

az226 wrote: post #554
lelag wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the cost of the infrastructure needed to run those large language models, it's very likely that Microsoft is still operating copilot at a loss. I don't see an issue with it being a paid service as it is a costly service to provide. What I pity however is that there's no free tier for hobbyists as paying a 10 usd monthly subscription wont make sense when you only code occasionally. For professionals using it eve…

It’s free for open source maintainers.

Open source maintainer here. No, it's not.

100% of what I do is open source. It's used by millions.

It's free for maintainers of "major" open source projects. I'm not sure what a "major" open source project is, but it's clearly not what I do. The only way to know if your open source project qualifies is to try to sign up. If it does, you're given a free option.

Re: GitHub Copilot is generally available

#605

Post by eclark »

tzs wrote: post #553
eclark wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a clear cut as you make it out to be. Tortious interference is a common law remedy that might make Github/MS liable. If I induce you to break a contract with someone else they can come after me for damages. For example in this case, there are developers who have created GPL code. That code was licensed to some other developer. Github then encouraged people to upload git copies of the GPL code onto…

> The books were purchased, meaning they got a license to use the book. This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't think that is correct. Most books I've seen don't say anything about granting a license so there would be no explicit license that comes with them. Maybe you could find an implicit license if normal use of a book required a license but it does not. Copyright law allows all the normal uses of a book without…

I should have been more explicit; You are completely correct.

I was saying that there's some implied license after first purchase. I believe that was part of the court's decision. Paying for a book (or a library paying) gives you implicit rights to fair use. Github's copies of code were not purchased. They were given by sometimes third party.

So there's likely some room to argue that fair use rights are different enough between previous cases and github.

Re: GitHub Copilot is generally available

#606

Post by zbird »

What an egregious and distasteful backstab to the community. We have stolen all your code and now we are making it available to all of you at the convenient monthly subscription of $10 or $100, whichever you prefer.

Do the guys at Microsoft have any morals left?

Re: GitHub Copilot is generally available

#607

Post by dahart »

lsh123 wrote: post #555

I assume that Copilot uses open source projects on GitHub to “learn” what to suggest. Some of these projects might be under, say, GPL v3. A developer uses Copilot for a commercial project and Copilot insert a complete function from a GPL v3 code into this project. Someone notices this and sues the commercial project for breaking GPL v3. Will GitHub pickup the tab?

> Someone notices this and sues the commercial project for breaking GPL v3.

I know what you mean, but silly nit pick since you mentioned “commercial” twice - GPL v3 does not prevent commercial use, it only requires copies to be open source. For someone to notice the project has copied code and not be inside the company, the code would (probably) have to be open source. So, this hypothetical is less likely to happen than your comment makes it sound.

A little further off topic, but amusing to me, is that the US government defines “commercial” software to be any software that has a license other than public domain. Free and open source software, such as GPL v3, is still “commercial” because it is licensed to the public https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-2#FAR_2_101

More on-topic now, a small single function accidentally copied from an open source project by automated software might be considered fair use by US copyright law. https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

(Edit) Oh yeah, and I just remembered that GitHub’s Terms already carve a necessary exception to whatever license you use in your project, to allow Github to host & display your code. I assume those terms already include some CoPilot coverage…? If not, and if they aren’t legally covered already (which I bet they are), then they could change the terms to stipulate that hosting code on GitHub bars people from suing over incidental amounts of automated copying. Main point here being that the GPLv3 license on your project is neither the only nor the primary license governing GitHub’s relationship with your code.

Re: GitHub Copilot is generally available

#608

Post by blagie »

[deleted] wrote: post #160
ahnick wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ummm, yes, that was my original point. What does "one or more of the most popular open source projects on GitHub" mean exactly? Do you need a certain number of github stars on your project? Are you listed on some "most popular github projects specific page"? or what?

[deleted]

There isn't a definition. The FAQ states:

    People who maintain popular open source projects receive a credit to 
    have 12 months of GitHub Copilot access for free. A maintainer of a
    popular open source project is defined as someone who has write or admin 
    access to one or more of the most popular open source projects on GitHub. 
    Simply visit the GitHub Copilot subscription page to see if you are one of 
    the open source maintainers that meet our criteria for a complimentary 
    subscription. If you do, you should see that you can add GitHub Copilot 
    for no charge. If you see a charge on the purchase page then this means 
    that you do not qualify at this time. Once awarded, if you are still a 
    maintainer of a popular open source project when your initial 12 months 
    subscription expires then you will be able to renew your subscription for 
    free.
As the principal author of a project used by millions, working 100% on open source today, I can say it's not free for me. My code is being used to train your models, but I can't use your models without paying you. That goes against the spirit of my share-alike license.

"Write or admin access" is also a pretty crappy way of evaluating people. "Write or admin access" goes by politics, rather than by contribution. It's also hostile towards junior developers, who might not have commit access on projects which work by forks and PRs.

This also excludes folks like Richard Stallman who don't host their projects with you (not that he'd use copilot, but just saying).

github does a fine job reviewing nonprofits. It feels half-baked that it can't identify open-source contributors.

At the very least, you should enable anyone whose code you scraped to train codex to use codex. I can make codex spit out code very similar to code I wrote. It's clear it was trained on it, and is creating a derivative work.

Re: GitHub Copilot is generally available

#609

Post by anaganisk »

matsemann wrote: post #397
jwpapi wrote: post #386

I’m honestly shook at all the comments here. I don’t make any money coding and I’m probably in the lower 25% of HN readers in terms of skills, but I’m more than happy to pay $10/m. I would pay Github $10/m for what they already give me. What is your time worth? You should easily get $60/hr, so you need to save 12 minutes per month to make it worth. I would pay that for all my employees. CoPilot is not a replacement f…

Could it perhaps be you not coding for a living (and being lower in skill as you say) that make you think it's worth it? For me the bottleneck is seldom typing. And while Copilot can sometimes dish out some more advanced stuff, I still have to verify it and understand it. Since I can basically solve every problem I encounter day-to-day, Copilot's contribution is not that useful.

When U say verify isn’t it just like 1 or 2 statement per completion? I’ve never seen it suggest more than that, a glance over the logic it completes with is lot more faster than typing it out in my experience. I spend more time thinking these days, than typing.

Re: GitHub Copilot is generally available

#610

Post by acro5piano »

baby wrote: post #97
meibo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is curious - I maintain 2 projects with 2k cumulative stars, and I was able to claim the free access. Wonder what the metric is? Maybe creation date has something to do with it?

If you want to check if you qualify: https://github.com/github-copilot/free_signup

I have a repository with 625 stars, but it redirects to the subscription page.
Post reply on HN