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

We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

githubcopilotlitigation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 824 posts

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#11

Post by shoshoshosho »

naillo wrote: post #3

I'm kinda sceptical that this goes anywhere given that basically they say that whatever copilot outputs is your responsibility to vet that it doesn't break any copyright (obviously that goes against the promise of it and the PR but that's the small print that gets them out of trouble).

You could argue that it’s the individual projects using copilot that are violating here, I guess? Like you can use curl or git to dump some AGPL code into your commercial closed software but no one would (hopefully) blame those tools.

So copilot is fine but anyone using it must abide by the collective set of licenses that it used to write code for you…?

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#12

Post by charcircuit »

dmitrygr wrote: post #4
naillo wrote: post #3

I'm kinda sceptical that this goes anywhere given that basically they say that whatever copilot outputs is your responsibility to vet that it doesn't break any copyright (obviously that goes against the promise of it and the PR but that's the small print that gets them out of trouble).

So, if i made napster 2.0 and said that it is your job to make sure that you do not download anything copyrighted, that would be ok?

Yes that would be okay. It would also be okay to create Internet 2.0.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#14

Post by nicolashahn »

dmitrygr wrote: post #4
naillo wrote: post #3

I'm kinda sceptical that this goes anywhere given that basically they say that whatever copilot outputs is your responsibility to vet that it doesn't break any copyright (obviously that goes against the promise of it and the PR but that's the small print that gets them out of trouble).

So, if i made napster 2.0 and said that it is your job to make sure that you do not download anything copyrighted, that would be ok?

That's basically the situation for any torrent client

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#15

Post by eurasiantiger »

dmitrygr wrote: post #4
naillo wrote: post #3

I'm kinda sceptical that this goes anywhere given that basically they say that whatever copilot outputs is your responsibility to vet that it doesn't break any copyright (obviously that goes against the promise of it and the PR but that's the small print that gets them out of trouble).

So, if i made napster 2.0 and said that it is your job to make sure that you do not download anything copyrighted, that would be ok?

Isn’t that already how everything on the internet works?

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#19

Post by donatj »

dmitrygr wrote: post #4
naillo wrote: post #3

I'm kinda sceptical that this goes anywhere given that basically they say that whatever copilot outputs is your responsibility to vet that it doesn't break any copyright (obviously that goes against the promise of it and the PR but that's the small print that gets them out of trouble).

So, if i made napster 2.0 and said that it is your job to make sure that you do not download anything copyrighted, that would be ok?

Yep. That's exactly why Bittorrent clients can exist.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#20

Post by dmalik »

dmitrygr wrote: post #4
naillo wrote: post #3

I'm kinda sceptical that this goes anywhere given that basically they say that whatever copilot outputs is your responsibility to vet that it doesn't break any copyright (obviously that goes against the promise of it and the PR but that's the small print that gets them out of trouble).

So, if i made napster 2.0 and said that it is your job to make sure that you do not download anything copyrighted, that would be ok?

You mean like every torrent client that currently exists?
Post reply on HN