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

Copilot sells code other people wrote

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 838 posts

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#591

Post by Inityx »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #563
nickjj wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your code is using a license that allows it, how could you possibly opt-out aside from using a different license? A repo setting that instructs Github not to use your code for Copilot, it could be a similar option as turning Discussions on / off. If they really want to win developers over they would even have Copilot scanning disabled by default but that'll never happen.

Even if Github did provide that setting, as a courtesy, someone could clone / fork the code to another repo (if you use any licence that allows it) and not enable that setting.

Sure that's possible, but there's a huuuge difference between Possible and Default Behavior.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#592

Post by birdyrooster »

bastardoperator wrote: post #565
worker_person wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MSFT tried very hard to sue Linux into oblivion. Buying SCO, then claiming they owned all of Linux. http://www.groklaw.net/ I trust MSFT to screw everyone over.

You're making stuff up. MSFT never bought SCO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...

Not sure where your confidence came from but a Google of “sco Microsoft” reveals:

By the mid-1980s Microsoft had gotten out of the Unix business, except for its ownership stake in SCO.[20]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#593

Post by davesque »

PaulKeeble wrote: post #561
nickjj wrote: post #535

This might be overreacting but is there a way to opt-out of Copilot using your code in open source repos? It feels morally wrong to me that I can spend thousands of hours working on projects on my own free will but then a company can sell the code I wrote to others in the form of snippet completion as a service. In fact they end up selling your code back to yourself if you plan to use the service. If the answer is no…

It should be automatic based on license. GPL code definitely shouldn't be included but MIT could be. They already have this information in most repositories and if its missing they have no right to use it at all. We don't need extra options the licenses already restrict the use and derivative work.

Not without the text of the license. I, as a developer, cannot just poach open source code under MIT without including the copyright and terms from the original project. From the license:

"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#594

Post by zarzavat »

nirvdrum wrote: post #386
jimnotgym wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes read people's open source code on github and use the ideas from that to develop my own ideas. In fact sometimes I copy and paste short passages and then rework them. I also employ a team of people who may do the same. Is that fair use, yes of course it is. Is co-pilot automating that fair use, I would say so.

Many people would claim what you're doing is a derivative work. I'm not sure the "of course it is" is very clear-cut (at least in the US). I've worked at big companies that have lawyers that care very much about this topic and what you're describing is prohibited. But, maybe it's different if you're not distributing your source.

> I've worked at big companies that have lawyers that care very much about this topic and what you're describing is prohibited.

They are doing this to make sure that any lawsuit can be easily dismissed. It has nothing to do with the legality of the action (which sounds like fair use as the parent described it), and everything to do with the expense of a potential lawsuit compared to the cost effectiveness of simply telling developers “don’t do that”.

Most people think that the law has two shades: lawful vs unlawful. But the more practical distinction is expensive lawsuit vs dismissed lawsuit. This is the lens through which corporate lawyers see copyright and it might explain why so many programmers think that copilot is “obviously” breaking the law and “stealing” their code.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#595

Post by mplanchard »

Guid_NewGuid wrote: post #569

I find this whole topic very annoying, this is like the 3rd variation to reach the front page today. But it has made me realize why I instinctively dislike Free Software as a movement. Copyright and licensing are bad, actually. Stop getting worked up about the idea of using courts to punish theft. Stop getting into a frenzy of arousal about the police kicking down doors to drag Billy Gates to jail because 80 characte…

If that's what you want, you should license your code not under MIT, but under a license that allows replication/distribution without attribution. Meanwhile, others who do care about such things can license their code under licenses that require attribution/copyleft/etc.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#596

Post by sammax »

jaywalk wrote: post #550
nickjj wrote: post #535

This might be overreacting but is there a way to opt-out of Copilot using your code in open source repos? It feels morally wrong to me that I can spend thousands of hours working on projects on my own free will but then a company can sell the code I wrote to others in the form of snippet completion as a service. In fact they end up selling your code back to yourself if you plan to use the service. If the answer is no…

If your code is using a license that allows it, how could you possibly opt-out aside from using a different license?

Don’t most licenses require at least attribution? I don’t believe GitHub is restricting themselves to only licenses that don’t. In fact the only software licenses I can think of that don’t require attribution are 0BSD, WTFPL, CC0, MIT-0 and Unlicense, and they all aren’t super popular. Also in some countries creators have inalienable moral rights which can be enforced regardless of the license. For example in Germany it is impossible to relinquish certain rights you have as the creator of a work, including the right to attribution.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#597

Post by marpstar »

Guid_NewGuid wrote: post #569

I find this whole topic very annoying, this is like the 3rd variation to reach the front page today. But it has made me realize why I instinctively dislike Free Software as a movement. Copyright and licensing are bad, actually. Stop getting worked up about the idea of using courts to punish theft. Stop getting into a frenzy of arousal about the police kicking down doors to drag Billy Gates to jail because 80 characte…

> Copy my MIT licensed code without attribution? I don't give a shit, go ahead, I hope it helps

This is my feeling as well. I don't build stuff in the open so that I can get bent out of shape at someone not properly licensing it. It's in a public repository, FFS... I assume that if anyone even notices my repo, that they may copy/paste a few lines out of my solution if it helps them.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#599

Post by [deleted] »

542458 wrote: post #460
aposm wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't imagine a scenario in which any lawyer would consider granting Github the right to "analyze" code anywhere close to granting Github the right to spit out that same code verbatim without your copyright notice (even if laundered by AI).

Here's Kate Downing, an IP lawyer specializing in software license: > According to Downing, the answer depends to a certain extent on where that code is hosted. If it’s on GitHub, there very clearly would not be copyright infringement. > “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,”…

[deleted]

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#600

Post by sammax »

minhazm wrote: post #530
vorpalhex wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it's hard for Github to determine that in general, so I doubt they would be liable for the error. Please insert that meme, "That's not how that works. That's not how any of this works!" The legal system is permission based, not forgiveness or "I didn't know" based.

Actually the legal system is evidence based. Microsoft has evidence that the code they are producing is licensed under MIT as far as they can reasonably know. There's no definitive way to know that who actually owns the original copyright. I could grant permission to use my repo, but maybe I got that code from someone else, who then got it from someone else and so on and so forth. It's a similar situation with stolen…

Microsoft has evidence that the code they are reproducing is MIT licensed, so are they intentionally violating that license or does this AI thing include the license and attribution in every snippet it generates?
Post reply on HN