31–40 of 734 posts
Bit confused. If I have code on GitHub with most restrictive licence possible (no commercial reuse, no derived works) then how did Githubs legal get comfortable with this approach? What am I missing ?
Really hoping to see a max exodus from GitHub after this. Microsoft back to their old tactics like we all knew they would.
Any suggestions for an alternative? One thing I like about github is that it 'seems' to be a defacto standard for portfolios & public works. It also has excellent integration into AWS and alike
Out of curiosity, how do we define license violation in that case? I, as a human being, have trained by reading code, much of which is covered by licenses that are somehow not compatible with code I'm writing. Am I violating licenses? Asking seriously. It's really unclear to me where law and/or ethics put the boundaries. Also, I'd guess it's probably country dependent.
Out of curiosity, how do we define license violation in that case? I, as a human being, have trained by reading code, much of which is covered by licenses that are somehow not compatible with code I'm writing. Am I violating licenses? Asking seriously. It's really unclear to me where law and/or ethics put the boundaries. Also, I'd guess it's probably country dependent.
That depends, if you end up writing copies of the code you've studied then yes. You are on thin ice. Plagarization is definitely something that you can do with computer code. There have been several high profile cases around this in arts. As far as I can see it usually ends up being a question about how much of the work is similar, how similar it is, and how unique what was similar is. And added wrinkle in programing is that some things can be done in only one way, or at least any reasonable programmer will do it in only one way. So for example a swap(var1, var2) function can usually only be done in one way, and therefor you would not get in trouble if your and someone else swap function are the same.
I've been following the discussion about Copilot, and one issue that comes up again and again is that people seem to think that since Copilot is new, the law will treat it, and the code it writes differently, than what it would you or a copy machine. I think that is naive, my impression is that courts care more about what you did, not how you did it, and if you think Copilot can be used to do an end run around the law. Prepare to be disappointed.
So if Copilot memorize code and spits out copies of that code, then it is at best skating on thin ice, or at worst doing a license violation. If the code it is copying is unique, then it definitely is heading into problematic territory. I'm fairly sure sure someone in legal at Github is very unhappy about the quake fast inverse square root function.
Bit confused. If I have code on GitHub with most restrictive licence possible (no commercial reuse, no derived works) then how did Githubs legal get comfortable with this approach? What am I missing ?
There's an assumption that public repos can be read by humans and machines both which hasn't been questioned legally.
At least to some first approximation irrelevant because reading code is not subject to any license. What if a human reads some restrictively licensed code and years later uses some idea he noticed in that code, maybe even no longer being aware from where this idea comes? But what if the system memorizes entire functions? What if a human does so? What if you change all the variable names? What if you rearrange the con…
The problem is that humans are limited in retention and rate of learning. An AI/ML is not, which makes (or should make) a difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not outrage bait. The thing reproduces GPL licensed code verbatim.
I'm talking about how it's presented. It starts with >oh my gods. they literally have no shame about this. Then continues with >it's official, obeying copyright is only for the plebs and proles, rich people and big companies can do whatever they want and > GitHub, and by extension @Microsoft , knows that copyright is essentially worthless for individuals and small community projects. THAT is why they're all buddy-bud…
A non rich individual has basically zero chance of challenging GitHub on these blatant violations, and they know it.
> At any rate, it's not even clear to me if me publishing code written with copilot (or even with a random tool that will wget from github) puts the blame on the toolmaker or on me.
It really depends on the license, which GitHub apparently doesn't care about at all.
Out of curiosity, how do we define license violation in that case? I, as a human being, have trained by reading code, much of which is covered by licenses that are somehow not compatible with code I'm writing. Am I violating licenses? Asking seriously. It's really unclear to me where law and/or ethics put the boundaries. Also, I'd guess it's probably country dependent.
Most humans don't do so unintentionally though.
Out of curiosity, how do we define license violation in that case? I, as a human being, have trained by reading code, much of which is covered by licenses that are somehow not compatible with code I'm writing. Am I violating licenses? Asking seriously. It's really unclear to me where law and/or ethics put the boundaries. Also, I'd guess it's probably country dependent.
Some chimps cant sleep at night if what comes out of their 6 inch chimp head is not acknowledged in some way by the entire troupe. These bastards then spend their whole life finding each other and reinforcing each others self importance calling the stories laws, ethics and all kinds of bullshit. It all doesnt matter cause once what comes out of the 6 inch head has been digitized it is now property of the rest of the universe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's an assumption that public repos can be read by humans and machines both which hasn't been questioned legally.
But the repos are provided under licenced terms no which can vary depending on publishers choice? Put another way, is there a licence that would prohibit reuse in this manner ?