321–330 of 475 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Physical slavery was once the law of the land too. I like to think I would have been on the right side of history at that time, as well.
You are simply not making much sense, and to compare physical slavery with copyright is ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, but GitHub's TOS doesn't (or at least shouldn't) change the conditions of the original license. You're giving GitHub a copy of the source code, not the ability to dictate your license for you. There's certainly a lot of legal ambiguity in the copyright sense, but one thing seems clear: Microsoft trained Copilot on code they weren't certain they could use.
Technically the GitHub TOS is in itself a license; much like how you can dual-license code, uploading to GitHub is its own license grant separate from the license of the code you're granting to anyone who wants to use it for their own purposes. LICENSE.txt/md is not the only way to grant access to code you write.
IANAL, but I think Copilot is not a reasonable thing to include in these services.
Excellent. GitHub is in my opinion crossing a whole pile of lines here that should not have been crossed without the authors explicit permission, regardless of the utility of the tool they built. Copyright is not something that can be signed over by a terms-of-use change of a hosting provider, the expectation is that your host does not automatically claim the rights to anything that you store there. Such projects sho…
Excellent. GitHub is in my opinion crossing a whole pile of lines here that should not have been crossed without the authors explicit permission, regardless of the utility of the tool they built. Copyright is not something that can be signed over by a terms-of-use change of a hosting provider, the expectation is that your host does not automatically claim the rights to anything that you store there. Such projects sho…
You say that like Github Copilot could have been trained in a different way. There's just too much utility and progress in Github Copilot to let this lawsuit win.
Signing up for disperse litigation like this seems like a pretty ballsy move by GitHub, but hey, Microsoft presumably has in-house lawyers with lots of spare time.
Excellent. GitHub is in my opinion crossing a whole pile of lines here that should not have been crossed without the authors explicit permission, regardless of the utility of the tool they built. Copyright is not something that can be signed over by a terms-of-use change of a hosting provider, the expectation is that your host does not automatically claim the rights to anything that you store there. Such projects sho…
You say that like Github Copilot could have been trained in a different way. There's just too much utility and progress in Github Copilot to let this lawsuit win.
I'm still baffled as to why people treat Github like a public library despite being owned by what was at one time the greatest enemy of free and open source software in existence. Not saying they haven't changed their tune somewhat, but a library owned by Barnes and Noble is going to have very different incentives than an actual library. Made all the more silly by the fact that it's Git. You could just host it yourse…
local> ssh user@example.com
user@example> git init --bare $DIR
user@example> exit
local> git clone user@example.com:$DIR
I'm with you in camp baffled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google also used all of this to improve their OCR algorithms, almost certainly used in Google Cloud Vision[0], but I doubt this was a consideration when deciding if it was transformative/fair use. 0: https://cloud.google.com/vision
Yet they did not build and market a service to authors that would write novels for them based on their OCR-ed catalog.
I find this to be a very appropriate analogy. If Google had done such a thing, they would be facing the same kinds of lawsuits that Microsoft is facing now. And despite Microsoft's money, I don't see how they can wiggle their way out of this one. They basically ignored the license terms and attribution requirements of the authors. Something Microsoft would never stand for, if "the shoe was on the other foot".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Behold: https://twitter.com/StefanKarpinski/status/14109710611816816... Probably helps that this is from a codebase that's been forked quite a bit.
You can't even code search in forked repos so maybe forks were excluded (besides commits on top of the fork)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other side, they could argue that it's like a human learning how to code over a decade of looking at the internet, and that human doesn't need to DM every code author to ask if they can learn from their content (and the risk for the author is similar given the human might one day recall some author's code verbatim and not give attribution).
>On the other side, they could argue that it's like a human learning how to code over a decade of looking at the internet, and that human doesn't need to DM every code author to ask if they can learn from their content (and the risk for the author is similar given the human might one day recall some author's code verbatim and not give attribution). It might not be that easy, I think Wine developers are not allowed to…