I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

Re:I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as t... by jcelerier on Saturday July 03, 2021 @04:16PM (#27724549)

> Your example is the very specific scenario where you're attempting to replicate an entire program, API, etc., to identical specifications. That's obviously not fair use. You're not dealing with little bits and pieces, you're dealing with an entire finished product.

No - google's 9 lines of sorting algorithm (iirc) copied from Oracle's implementation were not considered fair use in the Google / Oracle debacle.

Likewise SCO claimed that 80 copied lines (in the entirety of the Linux source code) were a copyright violation, even if we never had a legal answer to this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as t... by crazygringo on Saturday July 03, 2021 @04:18PM (#27724562)

Sorry, but you're not recalling correctly. :)

The Supreme Court decided Google v. Oracle was fair use. It was 3 months ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_...

That's the highest form of precedent, the question has now been effectively settled (unless Congress ever changes the law).

Edit: added a dummy hash to end of URL so HN parses it correctly (thanks @thewakalix below)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as t... by jcelerier on Saturday July 03, 2021 @04:31PM (#27724654)

nope, those lines were specifically excluded from the prior judgment - and SC did not cast another judgment on them:

> With respect to Oracle’s claim for relief for copyright infringement, judgment is entered in favor of Google and against Oracle except as follows: the rangeCheck code in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.java, and the eight decompiled files (seven “Impl.java” files and one“ACL” file), as to which judgment for Oracle and against Google is entered in the amount of zero dollars (as per the parties’ stipulation).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as t... by croes on Saturday July 03, 2021 @04:57PM (#27724863)

The fair use was about Googled API reimplementation. It becomes a whole different case with a 1:1 copy of code. And don't forget fair use works in the US, not necessarily in the rest of the world.

But I'm happy about all the new GPL programs created by Copilot

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as t... by etothepii on Saturday July 03, 2021 @07:01PM (#27725703)

I wonder if GPL would actually price to be that infectious.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as t... by wtallis on Saturday July 03, 2021 @04:28PM (#27724634)

That Supreme Court ruling doesn't appear to address the claims of actual copied code (the rangeCheck function), only the more nebulous API copyright claims.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as t... by thewakalix on Saturday July 03, 2021 @04:25PM (#27724600)

There seems to be an issue with Hacker News's URL parsing. The final period isn't included as part of the link.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as t... by astrange on Saturday July 03, 2021 @07:24PM (#27725852)

That would be the wrong result in almost all cases.

[ Parent | on HN ]