Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Copilot sells code other people wrote

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 838 posts

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#571

Post by glouwbug »

noisy_boy wrote: post #534

Say, I want to write a getter method like below: String getName() { return name; } Let us also assume that this snippet, unsurprisingly, has been in several copyrighted repos that didn't grant Github the right to share this code. So I start tying "getName" and copilot suggests the exact snippet above. If I use this snippet, is it plagiarism? Even though the above code is the most "obvious" way to write this getter an…

Lucky for you if you, if you wrote a noise function that copilot returned as an implementation of Perlin noise you'd be breaching a _patent_! Said patent just expired a 20 year run, so you'll be okay this time!

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#572

Post by sirsinsalot »

frazbin wrote: post #555
xtracto wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really, REALLY like the idea of Copilot. I think it is a glance at what the future of AI can bring to improve programming. I understand where all the litigation and "uneasiness" is coming from, both from commercial and open-source projects. I've not installed or used it for the same reason (don't want to use AGPL or GPLd code by accident, and don't want my closed source code to be used accidentally as well), but th…

Huh... These comments have given me an idea: MS needs to be forced to train a model to compensate (pay) code authors and codebases based on snippet suggestions given by their tool: the Spotify model replacing Napster!

See: Who Owns the Future by Jaron Lanier

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#573

Post by bayindirh »

trasz wrote: post #503
bayindirh wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's under a copyleft license, I can't just copy & paste it under my non-copyleft licensed code and call it mine. That's as simple as that.

Not really. You can't copyright a trivial snippet, same way you can't copyright headers.

I've provided a more realistic and logical examples in this thread, please refer to them.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#575

Post by mrh0057 »

mhaymo wrote: post #505
VoodooJuJu wrote: post #364

It is now proven that copilot returns code from codebases with non-permissive licenses [1]. I'm curious - what are the legal implications of this going forward? I've so many questions. 1. Will Microsoft ever face lawsuits for these license violations? 2. If so, who/how? Class-action? 3. Will copilot be forced to open-source in the future? Under which license? Some open source licenses are incompatible with others, bu…

That regurgitated code exists on Github exists under an MIT license: https://github.com/jethrodaniel/fast_inv_sqrt "jethrodaniel" does not appear to have the copyright to offer that license, but it's hard for Github to determine that in general, so I doubt they would be liable for the error.

I’m not a lawyer but my understanding these are torts so all you have to prove is Microsoft has liability. I think this would be easy to prove due to the way neural networks work since it’s just a way of performing a search.

Since it’s a tort I don’t think you have to prove they should have know it would return copyrighted code, the fact that it does is enough to have liability.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#576

Post by progman32 »

Guid_NewGuid wrote: post #569

I find this whole topic very annoying, this is like the 3rd variation to reach the front page today. But it has made me realize why I instinctively dislike Free Software as a movement. Copyright and licensing are bad, actually. Stop getting worked up about the idea of using courts to punish theft. Stop getting into a frenzy of arousal about the police kicking down doors to drag Billy Gates to jail because 80 characte…

I see the free software movement as a variant on your ideals but rooted in practicality given the current environment.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#577

Post by q-big »

pwdisswordfish9 wrote: post #380
VoodooJuJu wrote: post #364

It is now proven that copilot returns code from codebases with non-permissive licenses [1]. I'm curious - what are the legal implications of this going forward? I've so many questions. 1. Will Microsoft ever face lawsuits for these license violations? 2. If so, who/how? Class-action? 3. Will copilot be forced to open-source in the future? Under which license? Some open source licenses are incompatible with others, bu…

Is there any leaked Microsoft code on GitHub? Someone should check if Copilot regurgitates that as well, then see how Microsoft reacts when someone slaps an AGPL license on that…

> Is there any leaked Microsoft code on GitHub?

There seems to be. Google 'windows nt source code leak github':

https://www.google.com/search?q=windows+nt+source+code+leak+...

First search results:

Windows NT 4.0:

> https://github.com/lianthony/NT4.0

> https://github.com/ZoloZiak/WinNT4

Windows XP:

> https://github.com/tongzx/nt5src

> https://github.com/onein528/NT5.1

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#578

Post by sirsinsalot »

Guid_NewGuid wrote: post #569

I find this whole topic very annoying, this is like the 3rd variation to reach the front page today. But it has made me realize why I instinctively dislike Free Software as a movement. Copyright and licensing are bad, actually. Stop getting worked up about the idea of using courts to punish theft. Stop getting into a frenzy of arousal about the police kicking down doors to drag Billy Gates to jail because 80 characte…

"A commons of knowledge is a public good."

Yes but this copilot model takes that, adds value and doesn't itself join the public common good. Instead it takes it, and makes you pay to have it back in another form.

If copilot were open source and the model released for the public good, being built of public data (in your scenario) we would have a very different conversation.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#579

Post by Guid_NewGuid »

progman32 wrote: post #576
Guid_NewGuid wrote: post #569

I find this whole topic very annoying, this is like the 3rd variation to reach the front page today. But it has made me realize why I instinctively dislike Free Software as a movement. Copyright and licensing are bad, actually. Stop getting worked up about the idea of using courts to punish theft. Stop getting into a frenzy of arousal about the police kicking down doors to drag Billy Gates to jail because 80 characte…

I see the free software movement as a variant on your ideals but rooted in practicality given the current environment.

I think we share a lot of the same goals but they presuppose openness based on violence, if you don't do what their license says exactly then they're going to use lawyers and courts and the state's monopoly on violence to make you comply.

I think at a fundamental level this abandons any vision of a true commons since as copilot discussions reveal the well is now polluted (to mix metaphors) and though in some frames the code is more free you certainly won't be if you fail to pay the penalty levied in a civil case for misusing it.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#580

Post by warkdarrior »

noisy_boy wrote: post #534

Say, I want to write a getter method like below: String getName() { return name; } Let us also assume that this snippet, unsurprisingly, has been in several copyrighted repos that didn't grant Github the right to share this code. So I start tying "getName" and copilot suggests the exact snippet above. If I use this snippet, is it plagiarism? Even though the above code is the most "obvious" way to write this getter an…

Clearly your code could be improved with some `Factory` objects and some dependency injection!
Post reply on HN