291–300 of 734 posts
While I’m not trying to lessen the implications of something like this, but didn’t we all agree to them being able to do this when we agreed to their TOS?
So why did GitHub chose to exclude private repositories? Why not include everything, including the code for windows?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume the code is a derivative work of training data because given different data code would be also different (neuron weights)
If I read a GPL implementation of a linked list and then write my own linked list implementation, was my neural network in my brain a derivative work of the GPL code?
Ok, my curiosity has been fired here... I have conjured up two scenarios here: Let's say I use copilot to generate a bunch of code for an app, something substantial, and it regurgitates a load of bits and pieces from many sources it got from GitHub, I'd assume there won't be any attribution in it... it will be as if Copilot made the code itself (I know it sort of does but lets not split hairs!). I'm guessing the prev…
Could this be the beginning of the true test of open source licenses? My understanding is that there has never been a ruling by a court to give precedence to the validity or scope of any open source license. I can see a class action suit coming on behalf of all GPL licensed code authors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, see Authors Guild v. Google. Even without a license or permission, fair use permits the mass scanning of books, the storage of the content of those books, and rendering verbatim snippets of those books. The Google Books site is not a derivative work of the millions of authors they copied from, and if they did copy any coincidentally GPL, AGPL, or creative commons copyleft work, the fair use exception applies befo…
You're strongly and incorrectly implying that "Fair Use" is a clear (and relatively immutable) concept within copyright law, which couldn't be further from the truth. Even if this or that particular case sets out what appears to be solid grounds, one shouldn't take that as gospel by any means. This mostly has to do with the nature of the wishy-washy nature of the 4 part Fair Use test, which, unlike decent legal tests…
Those questions for patents are barely more clear-cut than copyright fair use tests, there is lots of room for disagreement.
It's definitely true that a fair use defense against copyright infringement varies a lot by the field of work and norms can develop which are relevant to court cases. The music field is a mess, the "Blurred Lines" judgement was total bullshit. But the software field is not without its own copyright history and norms so there's no reason to expect everything to go to hell.
Copilot is currently a technical preview. Github has already said they intend to detect verbatim code and notify the user and present the correct license. That'll be in the final release.
Don't use the technical preview for anything except demoing a cool concept. It's not ready for that yet because it will reproduce licensed code and not tell you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, see Authors Guild v. Google. Even without a license or permission, fair use permits the mass scanning of books, the storage of the content of those books, and rendering verbatim snippets of those books. The Google Books site is not a derivative work of the millions of authors they copied from, and if they did copy any coincidentally GPL, AGPL, or creative commons copyleft work, the fair use exception applies befo…
You're strongly and incorrectly implying that "Fair Use" is a clear (and relatively immutable) concept within copyright law, which couldn't be further from the truth. Even if this or that particular case sets out what appears to be solid grounds, one shouldn't take that as gospel by any means. This mostly has to do with the nature of the wishy-washy nature of the 4 part Fair Use test, which, unlike decent legal tests…
Is (was?) a swipe gesture novel? Is it non-obvious?
There are a lot of posts here debating if licenses still apply when copilot generates verbatim code. The answer is yes. Copilot is currently a technical preview. Github has already said they intend to detect verbatim code and notify the user and present the correct license. That'll be in the final release. Don't use the technical preview for anything except demoing a cool concept. It's not ready for that yet because…
Please provide a source for this.
If the training set contains verbatim (A)GPL code does this mean that Copilot also should be distributed by Microsoft under GPL? Because without it Copilot (as it is distributed by Microsoft) couldn't be built, wouldn't it make it a derivative work of GPL'd code (and obviously every other license)? I see a lot of people comparing human learning to machine learning in the comments, but there is a huge difference - we…