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

21–30 of 824 posts

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#21

Post by ketralnis »

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?

I think you're looking for consistency that the legal system just doesn't provide. The music industry is more organised and litigious than the software industry and that gives them power that you and I don't have. If you called it "Napster 2.0" specifically you'd probably be prevented from shipping by a preliminary injunction. Is that fair or consistent? No. But it's the world we live in. Programmers want laws to be irrefutable and executable logic but they just aren't.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#22

Post by brookst »

I wonder if the plaintiffs' code would stand up to scrutiny of whether any of it was copied, even unintentionally, from other code they saw in their years of learning to program? I know that I have more-or-less transcribed from Stack Overflow/etc, and I have a strong suspicion that I have probably produced code identical to snippets I've seen in the past.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#24

Post by donatj »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #15
dmitrygr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think it's arguably how anything works. You can have a fork, but if you stab it in someones eye that's on you.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#25

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#26

Post by Swizec »

dmitrygr wrote: post #7
thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #5

How original is the generated code? Can the generated code be traced back to the code used for training and the original copyrights and licenses for that code? If so, what attribution(s) and license(s) should apply to the generated code?

They demonstrate generated code being identical to some training code.

How many ways are there to write many of the basic algorithms we all use though? Can I copyright "({ item }) => {item.label}"?

Because I sure have seen that exact code written, from scratch, in many many places.

I guess my question boils down to "What is the smallest copyrightable unit of code?". Because I'm certain suing a novelist for copyright infringement on a character that says "Hi, how are you?" would be considered absurd.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#28

Post by bugfix-66 »

Ask HN: I want to modify the BSD 2-Clause Open Source License to explicitly prohibit the use of the licensed software in training systems like Microsoft's Copilot (and use during inference). How should the third clause be worded?

  The No-AI 3-Clause Open Source Software License

  Copyright (C)  

  All rights reserved.

  Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
  modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
  are met:

  1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
     notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

  2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
     notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
     the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
     distribution.

  3. Use in source or binary forms for the construction or operation
     of predictive software generation systems is prohibited.

  THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
  "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
  LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
  A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
  HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
  SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
  LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
  DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
  THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
  (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
  OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
https://bugfix-66.com/f0bb8770d4b89844d51588f57089ae5233bf67...

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#29

Post by ISL »

Can anyone with Copilot access give a short summary of its response to the prompts:

  function force=Gmmr2Array(mass1, mass2)
and

  function [force, torque]=pointMatrixGravity(array1,array2)
?

I'd love to know if some of my GPL v3 code [1, 2] has landed in the training set

[1] https://github.com/4kbt/NewtonianEotWashToolkit/blob/master/...

[2] https://github.com/4kbt/NewtonianEotWashToolkit/blob/master/...

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#30

Post by mdaEyebot »

heavyset_go wrote: post #9
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).

Saying "it's your responsibility to not breach licenses or violate copyright" doesn't absolve your service from breaching licenses and violating copyright itself.

"It is the customer's responsibility to ensure that they only drink the water molecules which come out of their tap, and not the lead ones."
Post reply on HN