771–780 of 806 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
You said, "don't reproduce code verbatim" as the option. Maybe you should use the actual name of the option if you want people to know what you're talking about. The "with public code blocked" option I am aware of, and is distinctly different from what you said. Don't be a dick, and if you want to be a dick, be right the first time or piss off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, as a lawyer, I think it's really important to focus on intent. The Constitution gives us "To promote the progress of science and Useful Arts" (which we've expanded.) So question one in the back of our heads should be "Are we promoting progress here?" That most often means protecting the little guy, and that's why I think it's mostly necessary, and also must be evaluated very skeptically.
Define progress. Good luck.
The weird thing about CoPilot to me is that all the examples seem like bad examples: I don’t want my team writing new functions to count the bits in an int; I want them to call the function to count the bits. The real potential of CoPilot would be if GitHub uses it to design libraries for various languages that do the things people keep wanting done. Imagine if instead of autocompleting the body of `std::size_t count…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would only work if the original was uploaded to GitHub before the copies. Like, somebody could copy from GitLab or BitBucket. And git histories don’t always help if they’re not copied over.
But copyright law doesn't really care about how you prevent infringement, just that it doesn't happen. Isn't it up to Github to come up with a way to do it, or otherwise not do it at all?
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider
So the act of hosting copyrighted content is not actually a copyright violation for Github. They're not obligated to preemptively determine who the original copyright owner of some piece of code is, as they're not the judge of that in the first place. Even if you complain that someone stole your code, how is Github supposed to know who's lying? Copyright is a legal issue between the copyright holder and the copyright infringer. So the only thing Github is required to do is to respond to DMCA takedown notices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And why not train it on microsoft windows and office code?
> And why not train it on microsoft windows and office code? As a thought experiment, if one were to train a model on purely leaked and/or stolen source code, would the use of model step effectively "launder" the code and make later partial reuse legit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also this depends on jurisdiction.
Is there a jurisdiction that allows purely algorithms to be copyrighted? As far as I know, usually algorithms come under the umbrella of patents (in jurisdictions that allow software patents) rather than copyright. For example, it would interfere with e.g. copyright of scientific/mathematical papers if algorithms were copyrightable, as mathematicians would not be able to extend another mathematician’s ideas without f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reminds me my 4 year old daughter. She often comes from kindergarten with new toys. When i ask here, where did she get it, she tells that her friend gave this as a gift to her. When i dig deeper and ask around, i turns out that the friend who were gifting her things were not real owners of the gift. I see why i could be difficult for children to understand concept of ownership and that you should not gift things…
> and does not question if the person gifting was the real owner of the gift If you can figure out a method of determining whether someone owns the code that doesn't involve, "try suing in court for copyright infringement and see if it sticks" then we're kinda stuck. Because just because a codebase contains an exact or similar snippet from another codebase doesn't mean that snippet reaches the threshold of copyrighta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't help when someone else mirrors your code to GitHub.
But that's not guaranteed to happen and it still is a step forward.
What I am referring to is GitHub claiming that you are using their resources so they can break your license, when in fact you are not using their resources so they never made that agreement with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use copilot to do things that I would’ve hired people for. I create tests and put comments in my code and copilot comes up with pages of dreary boring shit that would take me 0 pleasure or brainpower but would take a lot of work to just go through. A real good example is mapping objects: let’s say you have a deep nested object from an ERP and you need to map that to another system(s). This is horrible work and copi…
I have to be honest I've not used it but it truly sounds incredible that it can do things as well as you say. So you write tests and copilot generates code you shove into production with little overhead ? Do you read the code thoroughly (kind of negating having it generated for you?), or just have blind faith in it because tests are green and just YOLO it into production ? I'd feel pretty uneasy deploying code that:…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BitTorrent (and, to a larger degree, EDonkey) did and still do that. Who tells you that what you're downloading is indeed what you think it is. You can click on a magnet link that claims to download a Debian ISO just to find out later that it's something else entirely. To make matters worse, BitTorrent even uploads to potentially hundreds of other clients while you're still downloading, so while downloading something…
BitTorrent is certainly not a good example to follow, but I do think that copilot is more wrong. They should definitely include disclaimers and make seeding opt-in (though I don't know how safe you are legally when you download a Lion King copy labeled Debian.iso). That said, they don't have the information necessary to tell whether what you're doing is legal or not. Copilot _has_ that information. The model spits ou…
A car has all the information that it's going faster than the speed limit, or that it just ran a red light. But in the end it's the driver who is responsible. It's not the tool (car, Copilot) that commits the illegal act, it's the user using that tool