131–140 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something like this? [GitHub Copilot License Config Menu] Show suggestions with the following tags: - [ ] GPLv3 - [x] GPLv2 - [ ] AGPL - [x] CC-BY-SA - [x] Apache License - [x] MIT License - [ ] No License Attribution
Those licenses require attributions. You can't just say "Copyright (c) all the projects indexed in Copilot".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's mildly interesting that you've decided to express your personal opinion about what is or is not fair use within in your license text, but the fact is that if a use of the work is deemed to be fair use under the law then the terms of the license you're offering are completely irrelevant. Your permission is not required to make fair use of the work, so no one needs to agree to your license.
> It's mildly interesting that you've decided to express your personal opinion about what is or is not fair use within in your license text, but the fact is that if a use of the work is deemed to be fair use under the law then the terms of the license you're offering are completely irrelevant. Your permission is not required to make fair use of the work, so no one needs to agree to your license. You do not seem to ge…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, he did wrong and gross things, but in the same breath he's brushed under the rug, so are his ideas. His ideas being "brushed under the rug" had nothing to do with his public "cancellation" that happened in the past few years. Stallman has always been an extreme purist that prioritized his ideological stance over anything else that matters to users. And his ideas were "brushed under the rug" just as much 5 year…
Stallman was looking out for USERS, not developers. the problem was the developers thought it was them that Stallman was wanting to protect. GPL, and Libre Software is about keeping software open from the Dev to the EndUser. Non-Copyleft "Open Source" is about keeping libraries open for Dev's to exploit into their closed source products... There is a big difference, I support Free Software, not "Open Source"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software licenses have barely been tested in court, let alone how they apply to code injected and combined with other code via machine learning. You're extremely overconfident about how this will actually play out. For one, just because your code is covered by the GPL, it doesn't mean every single line in isolation is copyrightable. It has to demonstrate creativity. That's why you don't have to worry about writing fo…
> Software licenses have barely been tested in court... OSS licenses have been litigated and upheld. Can't supply details of my own experience for confidentiality reasons but plenty of plaintiffs have prevailed in suits about violations of OSS license terms. My guess is the numbers are higher than you might think because a lot of the cases end in non-public settlements.
The ignorance in this comment section is already giving me an aneurysm. Software licenses matter. Copyright matters. If megacorps like Microsoft can sue people into oblivion for violating their copyright terms, people can sue Microsoft into oblivion for violating theirs. I don't use MS Github, I have no skin in the game, but I hope there is at-least a $1000 award to every instance of AGPL and GPL license violation be…
So much this. If a neural network is capable of regurgitating code verbatim (with comments!), it's not a stretch to say it's a derivative work of the GPL code used to feed it.
The ignorance in this comment section is already giving me an aneurysm. Software licenses matter. Copyright matters. If megacorps like Microsoft can sue people into oblivion for violating their copyright terms, people can sue Microsoft into oblivion for violating theirs. I don't use MS Github, I have no skin in the game, but I hope there is at-least a $1000 award to every instance of AGPL and GPL license violation be…
> The ignorance in this comment section is already giving me an aneurysm. Software licenses matter. Copyright matters. If anyone thinks they don't, ask why Microsoft didn't train Copilot on their Windows, Office, or Azure source repositories.
Given how the racist twitterbot AI turned out, along with L4 autonomous driving by 2017, I suspect that Copilot is going to suffer most from an incredibly high velocity of churned out security bugs and bad code. SWEs are probably going to get fired for using it and companies will need to ban it, even if the legal problems don't take it down.
It's useless. It is a problem looking for a solution much like most "AI" tools these days. I am frankly frustrated at everyone buying into this stunt.
Instead, I would like a system telling me about obscure things, traps, vulnerabilities, performance issues, etc... like the machine learning linter. The way I could see it work is by matching my code with bugfix commits. For example if several commits replaces "printf(buffer)" with "printf("%s", buffer)" and I write "printf(buffer)", I want an AI to tell me "code like yours is often replaced in commits, it may be wrong", bonus points if it can extract the reason from commit messages ("format string vulnerability") and suggest a replacement ("printf("%s", buffer)"), mega-bonus if it can point me to good explanation of the problem.
Pissing lines of code is easy, I can do it, anyone with a couple weeks of training can do it, I don't need a bot to help me with that. Thinking about everything while I am pissing my lines is hard, and I will welcome a little help.
A nice thing about that approach is that it is unlikely to result in worse code than what I would have written by myself, because it will be designed to trigger only on bad code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's mildly interesting that you've decided to express your personal opinion about what is or is not fair use within in your license text, but the fact is that if a use of the work is deemed to be fair use under the law then the terms of the license you're offering are completely irrelevant. Your permission is not required to make fair use of the work, so no one needs to agree to your license. You do not seem to ge…
It still amounts to an opinion statement in the license text which has no real bearing on the license. I was trying to be charitable, but your clarification makes it seem even more like you're just trying to spread unsubstantiated FUD in hopes of scaring people away from using your code as input to ML models even when that would be fair use. Which seems to me to be vaguely akin to fraud. Moreover, the license seems l…
The relevant part of the license is the definition of the covered work, which basically says that the output of any algorithm that uses copyrighted code as input is under the same license. It's wonderfully broad and general IMO.
As for my intent, that is published as FAQ's alongside the licenses, but not as part of the license text itself.
And yes, I am trying to spread FUD. That's the point. Spreading FUD is not necessarily a bad thing, especially in the legal realm against big megacorps.
> We already know that Copilot as it stands is unacceptable and unjust, from our perspective. So, why call for white papers? I don’t believe they will publish any papers that go against their views.