Live data from Hacker News

We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

githubcopilotlitigation.com

341–350 of 824 posts

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#341
post #306
post #270

I’m not a lawyer, but here is why I believe a class action lawsuit is correct; “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well. I’m sure my ow…

Attributions are fundamental to open source? I thought having source openly available was fundamental to open source (and allowed use without liability/warranty) as per apache, mit, and other licenses. If they just stick to using permissive-licensed source code then i'm not sure what the actual 'harm' is with co-pilot. If they auto-generate an acknowledgement file for all source repos used in co-pilot, and then asked…

Apparently they are using GPL-licensed code as well, see https://twitter.com/DocSparse/status/1581461734665367554

After five minutes of googling I'm still not sure if using MIT code requires an attribution, but many people claim it does, see https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/8163 as one example

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#342

This will fail very quickly. The licence that project owners publish with their code on Github applies to third parties who wish to use the code, but does not apply to Github. Authors who publish their code on Github grant Github a licence under the Github Terms: https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... Specifically, sections D.4 to D.7 grant Github the right to "to store, archive, parse, and d…

If that is pretty much verbatim under their terms, then yes the lawsuit is going nowhere.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#343
post #270

I’m not a lawyer, but here is why I believe a class action lawsuit is correct; “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well. I’m sure my ow…

Your code is not in that thing. That thing has merely read your code and adjusted its own generative code. It is not directly using your code any more than programmers are using print statements. A book can be copyrighted, the vocabulary of language cannot. A particular program can be copyrighted, but snippets of it cannot, especially when they are used in a different context. And that is why this lawsuit is dead on…

Whatever you say man :^)

https://twitter.com/docsparse/status/1581461734665367554

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like you're missing the entire purpose of copyleft vs public domain. The point is that copyleft source code cannot be used to improve proprietary software. That limitation is enforced with copyright. Proprietary software is closed source. You can't train your NN on it, because you can't read it in the first place. If someone takes your open source code and incorporates it into their proprietary software, the…

> If someone takes your open source code and incorporates it into their proprietary software, then they are effectively using your work for their private gain. And then if we can close that loop by taking their proprietary software and feeding it into a NN to re-liberate it isn't that a net win for software freedom? Today crossing the sourcecode->bytecode veil effectively obfuscates the implementation beyond most hum…

> And then if we can close that loop by taking their proprietary software

From where? They aren't publishing it. That's literally the meaning of proprietary.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#345
post #270

I’m not a lawyer, but here is why I believe a class action lawsuit is correct; “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well. I’m sure my ow…

> I’m not a lawyer, but Should have stopped there.

This is not a thread for lawyers to discuss only.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#346
post #270

I’m not a lawyer, but here is why I believe a class action lawsuit is correct; “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well. I’m sure my ow…

At this point we are back in the territory that the idea and the expression of the idea are inseparable, therefore the conclusion will be that copyright protection does not apply to code.

Personally I think this has the potential to blow up in everyones faces.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#347
post #339

This will fail very quickly. The licence that project owners publish with their code on Github applies to third parties who wish to use the code, but does not apply to Github. Authors who publish their code on Github grant Github a licence under the Github Terms: https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... Specifically, sections D.4 to D.7 grant Github the right to "to store, archive, parse, and d…

I don’t see that being “quickly” - they’d have to get a judge to agree that passing your code off without attribution for other people to use as their own work is a normal service improvement. Given that it’s a separate feature with different billing terms, I’m skeptical that it’s anywhere near the given that you’re portraying it as.

"Without attribution" is a condition of the licence that applies to third-parties. It is not a condition of the licence that applies to Github.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The brain is also just a "complex math program". This is not a fact.

Explain yourself. There is not a understood natural phenomenon which we could not capture in math. If you argue behavior of the brain cannot be modeled using a complex math program you are claiming the brain is qualitative different then any mechanism known to man since the dawn of time. The physics that gives rise to the brain is pretty much known. We can model all the protons, electrons and photons incredibly accur…

> There is not a understood natural phenomenon which we could not capture in math.

If all you have is a hammer...

The nature of consciousness is an open question. We don't know whether the brain is equivalent to a Turing machine.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#349
post #270

I’m not a lawyer, but here is why I believe a class action lawsuit is correct; “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well. I’m sure my ow…

The brain is also just a "complex math program". Since math is just the language we use to describe the world. I don't feel this argument has any weight at all.

It might be. If your brain generated verbatim someone's code without following its license, you would also break copyright, wouldn't you?

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like you're missing the entire purpose of copyleft vs public domain. The point is that copyleft source code cannot be used to improve proprietary software. That limitation is enforced with copyright. Proprietary software is closed source. You can't train your NN on it, because you can't read it in the first place. If someone takes your open source code and incorporates it into their proprietary software, the…

Copyleft wouldn’t need to exist without copyright because there would be no proprietary software to fight against. Sure, there would be software with code not published, but if it was ever leaked which it often is, you could do whatever you want with it. But in a world where copyright does exist, copyleft is a tool to fight back.

Yes, but we aren't here talking about whether copyright should exist. We're talking about whether Copilot violates it.
Post reply on HN