And social media sells ideas other people thought.
Copilot is limited to public code now, but it may easily be trained on non-public code - albeit this probably won't be for sale to the public.
Copilot sells code other people wrote
401–410 of 838 posts
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#402Should the snippets that Copilot is regurgitating be considered for copyright in the first place?
It seems akin to trying to copyright a certain drum pattern or chord progression.
Also, the history of the GPL, MIT, commercializing lisp machines, Symbolic, infighting, etc… seems a very different context than Copilot so I am having difficulty seeing the systemic problems that tools like this encourage.
There is of course a surface level similarity in that a corporation is profiting from IP in the public domain but the devil is in the details.
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they _are_ verbatim copying code and not respecting the license. It's not that complicated. Github knows better, can do better and should.
Do you have an example of Github Copilot doing that? Like a snippet of code generated by Copilot and a link to the original source code.
An example posted here on HN.
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#404Copilot produces verbatim GPL'd code. It's also a closed box.
Source: https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course you can and you should. But going from the Twitter bio and personal website, it doesn't appear to be the case here. They're an activist who lives from soliciting donations and selling 30$ videos on how to be anti-racist (like, literally).
Doesn't mean what they're saying is wrong. Probably makes more sense to attack the substance of their argument, and not their bio.
[deleted]
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
I share my code without a license because I want others to be able to see how I solved things. However, this doesn't mean I'm okay with wholesale copying my code. If it's some random guy, then whatever. If it's a corporation like Microsoft, then yeah, I have a problem with it. Under German law, the code is legally not allowed to be reproduced or used without explicit permission even if it doesn't have a license. I re…
> Under German law, the code is legally not allowed to be reproduced or used without explicit permission even if it doesn't have a license This is nuts. How can anbody be expected to both know that you’re German and German law when you post on an international website? Or is this a German law that exists to prevent other Germans from doing things but that the rest of the world scoffs at? https://choosealicense.com/
US law is pretty similar in this regard, isn't it? If you don't have a license for a particular piece of code, you can't use it without the author's/copyright holder's permission, even if you found it posted online.
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
Owning code snippets sounds ridiculous to me, like can I own this snippet? def average(*numbers): return sum(numbers)/len(numbers) if not is it because it is too small? what’s the minimum line number that ownership kicks into? what if I change the function name and the variable names?
If that's under a copyleft license, I can't just copy & paste it under my non-copyleft licensed code and call it mine. That's as simple as that.
It can’t be that simple. The function in the GP is not an original idea and is far too simple to merit protection just by slapping a license on it.
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really seem to be ignoring the core issue by focusing on SO though. Everything on SO is fair game, but code on GitHub is under a variety of licenses, and when Copilot regurgitates it, no matter how complex and inscrutable the process is that leads it to do so, it may be causing the user of Copilot to misuse that code because it doesn't even give them the opportunity to know where it came from or what license it w…
Again, how does that differ from Stack Overflow? Do you go and check whether a given reply belongs to a licensed project? Also, please consider that there is a toggle that allows you to block Copilot from using public code.
> Do you go and check whether a given reply belongs to a licensed project?
All SO questions, answers and comments are CC BY-SA. The terms of the site say that anyone submitting this content agrees that it's licensed that way, and when you visit the site you agree that you are provided with the content under that license. It's not necessary for you to check whether the submitter had the right to offer it under that license; that's their problem. The same goes for any content offered to you under a given license on any platform. I don't understand what your question has to do with the conversation.
The problem with Copilot, and I really can't believe this has to be restated over and over again, is that it takes code from projects with various licenses, and outputs it in your editor in various transformed-or-not-transformed ways (the fact that the transformation is extremely complex doesn't change anything), and gives you no way to know where the code came from, how it was licensed or how it has been transformed. So, despite the fact that if you use it enough you are virtually guaranteed to use code in contravention of its license, you cannot even know which projects you have stolen code from or which licenses' terms you are breaking.
> Also, please consider that there is a toggle that allows you to block Copilot from using public code.
Great. I'm sure its utility doesn't go down at all if you turn that toggle off...
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course you can and you should. But going from the Twitter bio and personal website, it doesn't appear to be the case here. They're an activist who lives from soliciting donations and selling 30$ videos on how to be anti-racist (like, literally).
Doesn't mean what they're saying is wrong. Probably makes more sense to attack the substance of their argument, and not their bio.
The comment I was replying to already did a good job at that, I was just adding some context because it helps explain the attitude.
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this fair use? I don't think that's been established yet. And if it is why didn't MS and OpenAI train it on their private code repositories? Fair use for thee not for me isn't very in keeping with the spirit of that claim.
Just because there has not been a test case yet does not make it illegal! If MS think it is fair use then they are free to go ahead. Business is all about recognising and assesing risks like this.
No post body was provided.