81–90 of 209 posts
I am excited to see where these questions lead.
Something like this? [GitHub Copilot License Config Menu] Show suggestions with the following tags: - [ ] GPLv3 - [x] GPLv2 - [ ] AGPL - [x] CC-BY-SA - [x] Apache License - [x] MIT License - [ ] No License Attribution
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something like this? [GitHub Copilot License Config Menu] Show suggestions with the following tags: - [ ] GPLv3 - [x] GPLv2 - [ ] AGPL - [x] CC-BY-SA - [x] Apache License - [x] MIT License - [ ] No License Attribution
Other picklists might be handy too, especially something that would narrow to higher quality sources. And they need a report button with a picklist of reasons.
> We already know that Copilot as it stands is unacceptable and unjust, from our perspective. So, why call for white papers? I don’t believe they will publish any papers that go against their views.
They have a position and they now want to support it with arguments, and they'd like it if people would help them do that. I think that's a backwards because it's putting the conclusion first then seeking to justify it, but to each their own.
Isn't that literally a lawyer's job?
I'm using Github to publish my code and seriously I don't care whenever Copilot was trained using it. I published it and in the end somebody can do anything with it without giving a damn about license, copyright etc - that's the truth of open-source.
No, that's your opinion, which as it turns out also has no legal basis. For me, I want proper attribution from people who use my code. And for any code that I release that's under copyleft, I absolutely do want that license followed.
You seem to be fine releasing your stuff into the public domain, and that's great that you want to do that, but you don't speak for everyone.
> We already know that Copilot as it stands is unacceptable and unjust [...]. Activists wonder if there isn't something fundamentally unfair about a proprietary software company building a service off their work. > We will read the submitted white papers, and we will publish ones that we think help elucidate the problem . Doesn't give me hope they're aiming for unbiased opinion. I would be very surprised if any of th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sound very confident about this, whereas copyright lawyers I've read discuss this issue seem much less confident overall, but lean toward thinking this would be fair use. What makes you so confident that this would not be ruled fair use? (And for people not familiar - if ruled fair use, it doesn't matter what the license is because fair use is an exception to copyright itself.)
I have a feeling you did not read the FAQ of the licenses. I don't blame you, but they explain my position. Here's the relevant quote: > GitHub is arguing that using FOSS code in Copilot is fair use because using data for training a machine learning algorithm has been labelled as fair use. [1] > However, even though the training is supposedly fair use, that doesn’t mean that the distribution of the output of such alg…
Licenses basically by definition cannot say what is and isn't fair use...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a position and they now want to support it with arguments, and they'd like it if people would help them do that. I think that's a backwards because it's putting the conclusion first then seeking to justify it, but to each their own.
> I think that's a backwards because it's putting the conclusion first then seeking to justify it Isn't that literally a lawyer's job?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a feeling you did not read the FAQ of the licenses. I don't blame you, but they explain my position. Here's the relevant quote: > GitHub is arguing that using FOSS code in Copilot is fair use because using data for training a machine learning algorithm has been labelled as fair use. [1] > However, even though the training is supposedly fair use, that doesn’t mean that the distribution of the output of such alg…
> My licenses say, basically, "Sure, training is fair use, but distributing the output is not." Licenses basically by definition cannot say what is and isn't fair use...
Yes. However, my licenses only say what people already say. Then the licenses go further and say, "But anything else is not allowed."
Everyone else says training is fair use. My licenses agree. But they make it clear that I don't believe that anything else is fair use.
Yes, these licenses must be tested in court. Except that they poison the well now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other picklists might be handy too, especially something that would narrow to higher quality sources. And they need a report button with a picklist of reasons.
eg, cleanliness described by different linters/static-analysis tools? Can we actually make better code suggestions by choosing examples which are known to have less super-obvious flaws?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a position and they now want to support it with arguments, and they'd like it if people would help them do that. I think that's a backwards because it's putting the conclusion first then seeking to justify it, but to each their own.
> I think that's a backwards because it's putting the conclusion first then seeking to justify it Isn't that literally a lawyer's job?
I guess, but then they should have their story straight before they start the astroturfing campaign.