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

GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

felixreda.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 156 posts

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#81

Post by skywhopper »

Hamuko wrote: post #37
minot wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Free Software community has made it clear from day 1 that the GPL can only achieve its goals through enforcement of copyright We should mention when we say this, although I think it is self-evident, that the preferable alternative is reducing the scope of copyright across the board -- be it with shorter time frames (I'd argue even twenty years total is too long!) or some other means. To programmers and develope…

> The core is always the user and what they need. Would reducing copyright duration actually help with that?

Copyright duration is not really a factor in the FSF’s actual goal, which is for software to be distributed with user-modifiable source code. Copyleft licenses are a means of achieving this through the existing copyright system with its ludicrous durations. But making copyright terms much shorter would help, yes, because any released source code or even binary files could be used, reverse-engineered, and modified without permission.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#83

Post by lucianfelix »

koshinae wrote: post #25

(Nice necromancy) Dude got ripped into in his own comment section... apparently he conveniently ignored the fact that copilot spits out verbatim code blocks, which is the main problem everyone talks about. I don't want to shit on the Pirate Party he is a member of, but most of his blogposts seems like the typical anti-EU bashing to me. But YMMV.

There's a recent ruling on the `verbatim` aspect:

>The judge disagreed, however, on the grounds that the code suggested by Copilot was not identical enough to the developers' own copyright-protected work, and thus section 1202(b) did not apply.[...] >Judge Tigar earlier ruled the plaintiffs hadn't actually demonstrated instances of this happening, which prompted a dismissal of the claim with a chance to amend it.

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/08/github_copilot_dmca/

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#84

Post by thwarted »

lukan wrote: post #64
lelanthran wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confusing "software UX" with "software freedom". The primary consideration is freedom for the user. Ease-of-use for the user is a different consideration.

"The core is always the user and what they need." I was referring to this and the main thing users need, is software they can use to solve their problems. If they have to study IT to do so, or hire programmers first, then this would be primarily a new (and big) problem to them, before they even can start working on their problem.

Free software isn't about solving your problems, it's about solving mine and enabling you, and others, to solve yours, and theirs. It's about if I've been generous enough to give, anyone who takes can't undermine my generosity by not also sharing. You having a problem that isn't solved by what I've made available, or is bigger/different than the problem I was solving, isn't my problem to solve or even know about. If you want to make your problem mine to solve, you can hire me. Everyone has problems, some of those problems are exactly the same, some of them overlap, and some are completely disjoint. If we have the same problem and my software is useful to solve that problem, you are welcome to use it, but you may find out that the problem I set out to solve for me does not exactly overlap with your problem.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#85

Post by [deleted] »

qjakdx wrote: post #74
carom wrote: post #20

This is missing the largest argument in my opinion. The weights are the derivative work of the GPL licensed code and should therefore be released under the GPL. I would say these companies release their weights or simply not train on copyleft code. It is truly amazing how many people will shill for these massive corporations that claim they love open source or that their AI is open while they profit off of the violat…

He works for GitHub and has probably never written anything in his life: https://okfn.de/en/vorstand/

[deleted]

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#86

Post by minifridge »

> I go to a bookshop, take a book off the shelf and start reading it, I am not infringing any copyright.

That's a false analogy. It is more like going to the bookshop and taking a photo of every page of the book.

Even so, if you use this content in any shape or form the source should be cited regardless of book ownership.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#87

Post by cal85 »

bakugo wrote: post #5

> If I go to a bookshop, take a book off the shelf and start reading it, I am not infringing any copyright Do pro-generative AI people have absolutely no argument besides this? If I had a dollar for every time I've heard it, I'd be rich by now. And it's not even close to being a good argument.

This (your comment) isn’t even a bad argument, it’s just a dismissal.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#88

Post by Eliah_Lakhin »

> If I go to a bookshop, take a book off the shelf and start reading it, I am not infringing any copyright.

I'm not sure this is applicable to licensed programs because a book is sold, not licensed.

> The output of a machine simply does not qualify for copyright protection – it is in the public domain.

As far as I know, the output of a compiler that builds executables from copyrighted source code is still subject to copyright protection. Is software like an LLM fundamentally different from a compiler in this regard?

In my opinion, the author's argument has several flaws, but perhaps a more important question is whether society would benefit from making an exception for LLM technologies.

I think it depends on how this technology will be used. If it is intended for purely educational purposes and is free of charge for end users, maybe it's not that bad. After all, we have Wikipedia.

However, if the technology is intended for commercial use, it might be reasonable to establish common rules for paying royalties to the original authors of the training data whenever authorship can be clearly determined. From this perspective, it could further benefit authors of open-source and possibly free software too.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#89

Post by ElectricSpoon »

carom wrote: post #20

This is missing the largest argument in my opinion. The weights are the derivative work of the GPL licensed code and should therefore be released under the GPL. I would say these companies release their weights or simply not train on copyleft code. It is truly amazing how many people will shill for these massive corporations that claim they love open source or that their AI is open while they profit off of the violat…

I'm with you on that. Many argue that AI models don't "contain the code" but if they are trained on the copyrighted data, and generate something similar, then the AI model is akin to a lossy data compression format.

Frequency signal data over an image are not the image, but no one argues a JPEG encoded copy of a PNG isn't the same image. I think the weights vs code are similar in that regard.

As for releasing weights, probably more if we're talking about AGPL code.

Post reply on HN