111–120 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This version specifically removes snippets that appear in open source code.
So instead of Open Source license violations for which it'd theoretically be possible to provide information to comply with those licenses, it instead only violates proprietary software licenses for which you shouldn't be using the code at all ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using AGPL code doesn't mean you agree to the terms. It means if you don't agree to and obey the terms, you don't have a license, which is copyright infringement.
>> if you don't agree to and obey the terms, you don't have a license, which is copyright infringement So you either agree to the license terms or you are breaking the law. If your company violates copyright law, it can be taken to court and sued for damages or forced compliance to the license terms: https://www.mend.io/resources/blog/the-100-million-case-for-... https://www.natlawreview.com/article/gpl-open-source-l…
Sadly, "simple license management" here just refers to "who in your organization has a license to use this tool", rather than "where did this code come from and what license is it under". This tool remains the equivalent of money laundering for violation of Open Source licenses (or software licenses in general).
I understand that some folks don't believe the same thing, and use copyleft licenses so that their code can't be re-used in a closed way, and that's fair. Github shouldn't be training their product on copyleft licenses.
It's fair to call out its misuse of certain licenses, but "the equivalent of money laundering for violation of Open Source licenses" is simply inaccurate, as many licenses allow this type of re-use explicitly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make it sound like Copilot is just copy-pasting something from a single repo. The code Copilot generates for me is extremely specific to my application. It understands the context, my code style and what I'm trying to do. The result looks like my own code and is utilizing the already existing parts of my application. The code it writes for me solves problems that you cannot find a standard solution for anywhere a…
> You make it sound like Copilot is just copy-pasting something from a single repo. Not at all. I'm saying it's derived from large amounts of code, without respecting the licenses on that code. > How Copilot is trained is an issue but answering the question "where did this code come from and what license is it under" would be impossible. Then it shouldn't exist outside of demos of what could exist in the future if th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So your company is okay providing all their source code to users? Nothing is forcing them to do that. If they are infringing they simply need to delete the infringing code and rewrite it by hand.
That's not how copyright infringement works. Great, you've stopped committing new infringements, but there's still a legal case over the previous infringements, for which you still need to provide appropriate remedy. If the remedy for copyright infringement were just "oh, we got caught, guess we'll stop now", that would provide substantial incentive for people to violate licenses as long as they hoped they wouldn't g…
I am jaded from practice around GDPR where the thinking of companies goes along the line: if we are caught, we will pay extra, but now we make big cash. And who knows, maybe we won't get caught.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Notwithstanding any other language in your Agreement, GitHub will defend you against any claim by an unaffiliated third-party that your use of GitHub Copilot misappropriated a trade secret or directly infringes a patent, copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property right of a third party, up to the greater of $500,000.00 USD or the total amount paid to GitHub for the use of GitHub Copilot during the 12 month…
the full segment also includes disclaimers on this so it isn't quite as cut and dry: > 4. Defense of Third Party Claims. Notwithstanding any other language in your Agreement, GitHub will defend you against any claim by an unaffiliated third-party that your use of GitHub Copilot misappropriated a trade secret or directly infringes a patent, copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property right of a third party, u…
Reasonable development practices certainly don't include scanning every line for copyright, but should catch the most obvious cases.
Overall I'm surprised they're willing to bet $500k per client on the legality of Copilot.
An extra $9/mo for: * Simple license management * Organization-wide policy management * Industry-leading private * Corporate proxy support Wow. Who’s going to pay a 90% premium for these features? Edit: OK seems like different marketing pages have different features. The list above comes from https://github.com/features/copilot/ . Still seems like a very steep increase over the base. And I cannot believe there are on…
9 bucks per developer isn’t that much. I getting a developer to be 5 percent faster is a huge gain for just 9 dollars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not an answer to your overall question of compliance, but to the specific point: > Copilot for Business does not retain any telemetry or Code Snippets Data. https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/configuring-github-copilo...
And if that page changes without notifying you? ... Unless they are selling the compliance as a feature, be careful.
Yeah I'll pay for something that is just slightly better/faster than writing it myself but will practically speaking steal my code and give it to others that pay for the same product. /s I'd say no thanks. I think programmers using Copilot is paying for something that'll hurt them in the long run for a tiny benefit in the short run. I don't trust Microsoft, and neither should you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where's the part of the Copilot EULA that indemifies users against copyright infringement for the generated code? If the model was trained entirely using code that Microsoft has copyright over (for example: the MS Windows codebase, the MS Office codebase, etc.) then they could offer legal assurances that they have usage rights to the generated code as derivative works. Without such assurances, how do you know that th…
Ultimately I think MS is right betting on the fact that this will not matter in the long run. All AI tools are trained on copyrighted data. The tools are too useful to cripple with restrictive laws written for a previous era.