11–20 of 398 posts
It hinges on what *Microsoft* decides "attempting to generate infringing materials" means. You'd like it to mean that it only excludes use when you're doing something you know would infringe copyright, like "reproduce the entire half life 2 source code." But who knows.
With a big asterik-- "customers... must not attempt to generate infringing materials..." It hinges on what *Microsoft* decides "attempting to generate infringing materials" means. You'd like it to mean that it only excludes use when you're doing something you know would infringe copyright, like "reproduce the entire half life 2 source code." But who knows.
The question though about microsoft stealing people's code and reselling it still stands.
With a big asterik-- "customers... must not attempt to generate infringing materials..." It hinges on what *Microsoft* decides "attempting to generate infringing materials" means. You'd like it to mean that it only excludes use when you're doing something you know would infringe copyright, like "reproduce the entire half life 2 source code." But who knows.
The way AI is going I'm sure we'll see some landmark cases very soon. It is very much in Microsoft's interest to grow this market as fast as possible and be at the center of it. This removes one of the key impediments to adopting generated code for smaller orgs: "Will I get sued if this product generates code that is copyrighted?".
With a big asterik-- "customers... must not attempt to generate infringing materials..." It hinges on what *Microsoft* decides "attempting to generate infringing materials" means. You'd like it to mean that it only excludes use when you're doing something you know would infringe copyright, like "reproduce the entire half life 2 source code." But who knows.
No, ultimately, it hinges on what a court enforcing the commitment believes “attempting to generate infringing materials” means.
(OTOH. it also means Microsoft ha an even bigger incentive to use its lobbying power to assure that the law is such that liability rarely occurs with the use of these tools.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you say that
Because now every copyright claim for GPL SW will hit the wall of Microsoft's lawyers.
But Microsoft has had a wall of lawyers for a long time. Microsoft's potential first-party GPL violations would have been defended by their lawyers for decades now.
This take seems to be stretching for a Microsoft bad interpretation.
Yet they don't feed their own closed source assets to Copilot for training...why not?
You can now launder GPL code with the confidence that Microsoft's world class legal team will have your back if you're sued for it.
I don't know why it is just GPL people talk about. MPL, Apache, MIT licenses all have additional terms beyond a basic public domain equivalent license. None of those terms are being respected.