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

An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

katedowninglaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 182 posts

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#11

Post by david_allison »

steve_gh wrote: post #10

Hmmm. I'm interested in the GitHub ToS, which (if I understand correctly) basically says that GitHub and it's affiliates (MS) can use anything you post on GitHub to improve their service. What if I build an AGPL licenced service, using GitHub to coordinate development. According to the ToS MS could offer a version my service because I posted the code on GitHub, and they are using it to improve their service to me. Ac…

As a follow-on, what if you're mirroring code which is under an AGPL license? Are you allowed to post it on GitHub if you can't grant those rights under the ToS due to the license of the code?

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#12

Post by NicoJuicy »

steve_gh wrote: post #10

Hmmm. I'm interested in the GitHub ToS, which (if I understand correctly) basically says that GitHub and it's affiliates (MS) can use anything you post on GitHub to improve their service. What if I build an AGPL licenced service, using GitHub to coordinate development. According to the ToS MS could offer a version my service because I posted the code on GitHub, and they are using it to improve their service to me. Ac…

Their service is hosting code, not writing code.

That's why it's GitHub, not CodeScribe ( or something)

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#15

Post by hooby »

visarga wrote: post #2

I think copyright itself might be on its way out. What meaning does a copyright have when I can click "Variations" on anything and get 4 suggestions in 10 seconds? Imagine how good they will be by 2030.

Copyright was originally intended to protect the creators of a work.

Over many years it has now mostly become a tool for large companies to accumulate rights (on works they didn't create themselves) and monetize them.

Maybe a reform is needed, to find a way back to the original purpose.

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#16

Post by Jweb_Guru »

runnerup wrote: post #6
LesZedCB wrote: post #3

out of curiosity, would anybody else cease to have an issue copilot if it was an open source model? i'm not paying for copilot right now because i'm waiting for this to shake out. but i'd be happy to pay (even their current asking price) if i knew the model was also open source and could be self hosted. maybe this is the wrong way to ask the question, but hopefully it makes sense

If it was GPL it could use GPL code and legally there would be no debate.

The project could, yes. It wouldn't necessarily change the legality of using it in non-GPL projects, though. If people were only using it in license-compatible projects and it was license-compatible with GPL, I doubt anyone would have any complaints (even though in theory it could also be picking up stuff from other incompatible licenses).

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#17

Post by amarant »

steve_gh wrote: post #10

Hmmm. I'm interested in the GitHub ToS, which (if I understand correctly) basically says that GitHub and it's affiliates (MS) can use anything you post on GitHub to improve their service. What if I build an AGPL licenced service, using GitHub to coordinate development. According to the ToS MS could offer a version my service because I posted the code on GitHub, and they are using it to improve their service to me. Ac…

Probably the ToS. You've granted GitHub specifically license to use your code under the terms of the ToS, they effectively have 2 licenses. They can therefore choose under which licence they want to use your code, and will choose the most permissive one, or the one they have the best understanding of: in this case the ToS.

Other parties are not granted license under the ToS, and so will have to abide by the AGPL.

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#19

Post by rlpb »

steve_gh wrote: post #10

Hmmm. I'm interested in the GitHub ToS, which (if I understand correctly) basically says that GitHub and it's affiliates (MS) can use anything you post on GitHub to improve their service. What if I build an AGPL licenced service, using GitHub to coordinate development. According to the ToS MS could offer a version my service because I posted the code on GitHub, and they are using it to improve their service to me. Ac…

Consider that you can post somebody else's code to GitHub, and that may be licensed AGPL (or anything else). In that case, somebody else is the copyright holder so clearly the ToS doesn't magically give GitHub any additional rights and the licence applies.

The most they could do is transfer any liability back to you for posting it in breach of some term in their ToS. But that would be absurd since posting someone else's code, licensed under a common (eg. OSI-approved) license, is an established and normal use case for GitHub. If their ToS really did ban the posting of some AGPL code, they really ought to have pointed it out, and of course it'd render GitHub useless for hosting AGPL code.

This would only apply when posting someone else's code. But of course you could always arrange that.

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#20

Post by geysersam »

nomilk wrote: post #13

If organic neural networks are allowed to read and learn from open source code, why should an artificial one be any different?

1. Humans are not neural networks. 2. Humans are not allowed to directly copy even rather short snippets of licenced code. 3. Humans do not have the capacity to memorize the entirity GitHub.
Post reply on HN