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

GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

#21

Post by haskellandchill »

ghoward wrote: post #9

Drew, that is a great post. I have two comments and a question. First, my comment is that GitHub claims the right to use any public code on the Internet, not just GitHub. This means that they claim the right to mine code on Sourcehut, or in my case, on my personal Gitea instance. I'm not sure your suggestion 1 covers that. I think it should. Second, users could fork code from Sourcehut onto GitHub, and then even if G…

> First, my comment is that GitHub claims the right to use any public code on the Internet, not just GitHub. This means that they claim the right to mine code on Sourcehut, or in my case, on my personal Gitea instance. I'm not sure your suggestion 1 covers that. I think it should.

People are allowed to read code on the internet and then write code themselves based on their experiences of the code that is publicly available. Why can't a software tool do the same? Everybody is being ridiculous about this.

Re: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

#22

Post by ghoward »

haskellandchill wrote: post #21
ghoward wrote: post #9

Drew, that is a great post. I have two comments and a question. First, my comment is that GitHub claims the right to use any public code on the Internet, not just GitHub. This means that they claim the right to mine code on Sourcehut, or in my case, on my personal Gitea instance. I'm not sure your suggestion 1 covers that. I think it should. Second, users could fork code from Sourcehut onto GitHub, and then even if G…

> First, my comment is that GitHub claims the right to use any public code on the Internet, not just GitHub. This means that they claim the right to mine code on Sourcehut, or in my case, on my personal Gitea instance. I'm not sure your suggestion 1 covers that. I think it should. People are allowed to read code on the internet and then write code themselves based on their experiences of the code that is publicly ava…

No, people are not allowed to just read code on the Internet and then write code themselves. It depends on what the code is that they write and how similar it is to the code they read and how creative the original code is.

For example, I'm developing an algorithm to merge two binary files of the same type, a completely new algorithm. Say someone reads the code for that algorithm when I am done and implements the same thing using the same algorithm, but refuses to put the AGPL on it (because that will be the license). Are they infringing? Absolutely.

This has, in fact, happened with the Fast Inverse Square Root algorithm, whose code is under the GPL. Copilot reproduced it verbatim, including swearing comments. [1]

People are not being ridiculous about this because it has already happened!

EDIT: Fixed a small mistake.

[1]: https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309

Re: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

#23

Post by zBard »

ghoward wrote: post #22
haskellandchill wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, my comment is that GitHub claims the right to use any public code on the Internet, not just GitHub. This means that they claim the right to mine code on Sourcehut, or in my case, on my personal Gitea instance. I'm not sure your suggestion 1 covers that. I think it should. People are allowed to read code on the internet and then write code themselves based on their experiences of the code that is publicly ava…

No, people are not allowed to just read code on the Internet and then write code themselves. It depends on what the code is that they write and how similar it is to the code they read and how creative the original code is. For example, I'm developing an algorithm to merge two binary files of the same type, a completely new algorithm. Say someone reads the code for that algorithm when I am done and implements the same…

'Fast Inverse Square Root algorithm, which is under the GPL'

The algorithm isn't under GPL, the code is. John took the algorithm itself from code which was written earlier.

Re: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

#24

Post by picsao »

ghoward wrote: post #9

Drew, that is a great post. I have two comments and a question. First, my comment is that GitHub claims the right to use any public code on the Internet, not just GitHub. This means that they claim the right to mine code on Sourcehut, or in my case, on my personal Gitea instance. I'm not sure your suggestion 1 covers that. I think it should. Second, users could fork code from Sourcehut onto GitHub, and then even if G…

No post body was provided.

Re: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

#25

Post by b3morales »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #17

> I cannot speak for the rest of the community that have been hurt by this project, but for my part, I would be okay with not pursuing the answers to any of these questions with you in court if you agreed to resolve these problems now. I mean... has anyone really been "hurt" by Copilot? Copying from another thread... The concept of intellectual property exists to incentivize creating valuable art/literature/code. In…

You're arguing for one-sided disarmament before the battle has been won. It may be true that there are other, better alternatives to copyright/IP. And open source licenses do amount to turning "strict IP" against itself, in a way. But they do so in a way that still follows the rules of copyright. Copilot is now trying to turn open source licensing against itself, without following those rules: to have its cake and eat it too.

Re: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

#26

Post by haskellandchill »

ghoward wrote: post #22
haskellandchill wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, my comment is that GitHub claims the right to use any public code on the Internet, not just GitHub. This means that they claim the right to mine code on Sourcehut, or in my case, on my personal Gitea instance. I'm not sure your suggestion 1 covers that. I think it should. People are allowed to read code on the internet and then write code themselves based on their experiences of the code that is publicly ava…

No, people are not allowed to just read code on the Internet and then write code themselves. It depends on what the code is that they write and how similar it is to the code they read and how creative the original code is. For example, I'm developing an algorithm to merge two binary files of the same type, a completely new algorithm. Say someone reads the code for that algorithm when I am done and implements the same…

Even if I play your dumb games the tool just suggests code the user can then choose to infringe or not.

Re: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

#27

Post by ghoward »

haskellandchill wrote: post #26
ghoward wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, people are not allowed to just read code on the Internet and then write code themselves. It depends on what the code is that they write and how similar it is to the code they read and how creative the original code is. For example, I'm developing an algorithm to merge two binary files of the same type, a completely new algorithm. Say someone reads the code for that algorithm when I am done and implements the same…

Even if I play your dumb games the tool just suggests code the user can then choose to infringe or not.

The user has no idea about the provenance of the code they receive, so they can't know it they are infringing or not. If that is the case, then suggesting that users should merely choose to not infringe is equivalent to suggesting that users should not use Copilot at all.

Re: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

#28

Post by haskellandchill »

ghoward wrote: post #27
haskellandchill wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if I play your dumb games the tool just suggests code the user can then choose to infringe or not.

The user has no idea about the provenance of the code they receive, so they can't know it they are infringing or not. If that is the case, then suggesting that users should merely choose to not infringe is equivalent to suggesting that users should not use Copilot at all.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN