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

GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–475 of 475 posts

Re: GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

#471

Post by kllrnohj »

baby wrote: post #466
sfifs wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mafia used to steal dresses from New York garment factory delivery trucks and hawk them door to door in poorer neighbourhoods. The users (poorer households) definitely got value out of this by being able to obtain dresses they could not afford, but doesn't make a case for what the mafia was doing was right.

I feel pretty strongly that getting rid of copilot will slow down progress at a massive scale. Not only by affecting users who are getting a huge benefit from it, but by setting a precedence in how you can train AI

So ignoring licenses is perfectly fine as long as you do it:

a) at scale

and

b) make some other population happy

In other words, piracy should be perfectly fine, too, right? After all there are a huge number of users who benefit from it?

Re: GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

#472

Post by baby »

kllrnohj wrote: post #471
baby wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel pretty strongly that getting rid of copilot will slow down progress at a massive scale. Not only by affecting users who are getting a huge benefit from it, but by setting a precedence in how you can train AI

So ignoring licenses is perfectly fine as long as you do it: a) at scale and b) make some other population happy In other words, piracy should be perfectly fine, too, right? After all there are a huge number of users who benefit from it?

I’d rephrase this as “open source is open source”

Re: GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

#473

Post by kache_ »

mattstir wrote: post #352
kache_ wrote: post #109

yeah that's great but we still unlocked tons of productivity who cares man just build stuff if you don't want people to learn off your code just don't share it!

Interestingly, the same companies who made the paid service by analyzing all of that open-source code would never, ever consider open-sourcing the code for that service. > if you don't want people to learn off your code "Learn" is a strange verb to use here. No one at Microsoft or OpenAI was scraping all of GitHub so that they could learn. They took people's licensed works, fed it into a very sophisticated copy-paste…

the cost of training is exponentially decreasing. It's only a matter of time before a codex-like model is released to the open.

Re: GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

#474

Post by jrm4 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #465
jrm4 wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course that's "extending." It's a very clever attack on open source generally.

But it's not open source specific. Not in creation and definitely not in use. And the idea of the extend of EEE applying to all of open source at once, the way you could apply to a product or a standard or a protocol, doesn't really make sense.

You're thinking way too narrowly. EEE doesn't require a specific plan -- if you look at the history of Microsoft engaging in EEE, you can see it's been much more experimental than you're suggesting.

It's basically Microsoft saying "Here is a thing that looks like it might in some way eventually be a threat to our business model and/or we can make some money off of it -- let's get our hooks in now and see what happens, we have the money to do it."

Re: GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

#475

Post by Dylan16807 »

jrm4 wrote: post #474
Dylan16807 wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not open source specific. Not in creation and definitely not in use. And the idea of the extend of EEE applying to all of open source at once, the way you could apply to a product or a standard or a protocol, doesn't really make sense.

You're thinking way too narrowly. EEE doesn't require a specific plan -- if you look at the history of Microsoft engaging in EEE, you can see it's been much more experimental than you're suggesting. It's basically Microsoft saying "Here is a thing that looks like it might in some way eventually be a threat to our business model and/or we can make some money off of it -- let's get our hooks in now and see what happens…

But again, copilot does not get their hooks into open source any more than it gets their hooks into code in general. And they're not doing EEE against "code".

EEE doesn't need a specific plan but it does need some kind of target standard. Getting into an emerging market, without specific kinds of integration or malfeasance, is just competition.

Post reply on HN