Co-pilot aside, that's already how it works today. If you make something open source, I can use your code to power my business, and I'm under no obligation to hire you. It's great when companies give back to open source, either by supporting the projects they depend on, or by open sourcing their own internal projects, but it's not obligatory.

If you don't want people to independently profit from your code, don't release it under a license that allows commercial use

     /* web user management */

Potentially, but not necessarily. It's possible also that if there is only one close match for the logic required, it may produce verbatim something it's already seen. GPT is known to do this for sufficiently precise inputs.

(And non-commercial licenses are not open source: https://opensource.org/osd)

> I have a lot of open source code that I love to share for things like education or private stuff, but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me.

implies that they have code which they are sharing under that proviso. Do you read it differently?

You are right about the technical distinction of open source from source-available. I think that the GGP (and myself) were both using it colloquially as a shorthand for source-available.

Edit: I was clearly making a distinction between open source (as in covered by an OSI-approved open source license) and only source-available, rather than treating source-available as a superset of open source.

"Open source" isn't a license. You're not allowed to just use any open source software that doesn't contain a license by default.

"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: ... The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

Still, if you come across some published source code that does not appear to be licensed and does not specifically define itself as being "Open Source" as defined by the "Open Source Initiative", copyright law applies and you're not allowed to just take it and use it.

GitHub specifically uses the words "source code from publicly available sources" when talking about what they used to train their model on.

As far as I'm aware public code repos aren't by default "Open Source" as defined by the "Open Source Initiative".

I agree that Copilot was probably trained in part on public code that isn't open source -- GitHub's claim (not saying I agree) is that they don't need a license to train on code.

In this post's comment section alone many use the term "open source" but really mean to say "public-source", others use the two terms interchangeably even when they seem to be aware of the distinction, and then there are people who seem to think that by making your GitHub repo public it becomes OSD-spec "open source" and with that free to use.

It's just so confusing and easy to misinterpret each-others' true meaning.

Thanks for making me aware of the existence of that OSD OSS spec btw! Came across the (recovered) blog post where the term was first announced http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html.

I'm honestly curious now.

Make sure you read those licenses. Just because something is open source doesn't mean that you're free to use it for whatever you want.

There are some projects that are open source and free for non-commercial use only.

That's not open source: https://opensource.org/osd

Regardless: Copilot doesn't only pick up "open source" code... it picks up any code that has been published under any reason including the large amounts of code that is on GitHub without any license at all or which was literally stolen and leaked onto GitHub.

Meanwhile, even open source licenses have restrictions, whether they be "you can't use my work without agreeing to contribute back your work to the collective", various forms of automatic patent grants and associated retaliation clauses, or merely "you have to credit me", a simple limitation almost all open source software comes with which Copilot launders away.

I don't think this is controversial? The OSI defined the term when they introduced it, in the late 90s. When Microsoft came out with "shared source" there was a huge amount of pushback from people saying "don't think that this is open source" (ex: https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5496)

> Copilot doesn't only pick up "open source" code... it picks up any code that has been published under any reason

I agree. I'm not defending Copilot, and I think the legal questions here are interesting and tricky. My pushback here and throughout this page has been when people say non-commercial licenses are open source -- this thread started with kuon saying "I have a lot of open source code that I love to share for things like education or private stuff, but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me"

You are stating a rather arbitrary assumption of yours as a fact, unless you have concrete sources or evidence.

There are many OSI approved licenses with restrictions on use, like "your software must also be open source" or "contribute back your changes" or "give me attribution"...

Just because that organization got their hands on a premium domain name doesn't mean they get to decide what that term means.

You shouldn't assume random strangers online know that you're referring to OSI's definition when you say "open source".

If I defined "open source" to mean that changes the source code must be released publicly, it's going to be pretty hard for me to talk to all the other people who already use "open source" to mean something else. There is already a standard term for the source code being publicly available: "source available": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software. You're also welcome to invent and attempt to popularize any alternative term you want, but using idiosyncratic definitions makes discussion less clear.

> Just because that organization got their hands on a premium domain name doesn't mean they get to decide what that term means.

The OSI didn't just claim "opensource.org" -- the folks behind it coined (https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...), introduced, and popularized the term "open source" over two decades ago. From the beginning they have used the same definition, which was derived from the Debian project's Free Software Guidelines.

They are not also not the only ones who use the term that way. Wikipedia has "Licenses which only permit non-commercial redistribution or modification of the source code for personal use only are generally not considered as open-source licenses" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

No I do not. Even strictly proprietary code can be copied and used in a for-profit way without approval as long as it qualifies for fair use.

Licenses and copyright are strictly related - the 'terms of use' in the form of a license simply is a grant for someone to reuse something in full granted they uphold their end of the bargain which might mean (for the GPL) relicensing code that touches said licensed code; but, if someone doesn't agree to the license or they don't uphold their end (such as by releasing their own code under the same license), the license states that the use is now invalid and they're not allowed to copy it in the permissive form provided unless the use passes the fair use doctrine.

Now 'fair use' is actually a pretty high bar, and most especially for code - feel free to read 17 USC 107 [0] which lays out how this is determined. What's tough for code is that, in terms of for copying code or using a library, it usually doesn't qualify for the initial requirement "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright". Unless you're taking GPL code and writing up how bad it is, or how efficient is is, chances are the use doesn't fit into fair use.

So while I think I was indeed a bit obtuse in saying that code could be used in a fair use way (since that's not what happens in these contexts) it's technically possible.

0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

If you license your software such that I can do whatever I want with it, then I can do whatever I want with it. I don't see how you can then go on to claim it isn't fair if I'm using as you allow.

If one of the richest corporations on Earth can't be bothered to share patches for permissively licensed code that they use, I will gladly shame them.

It's a different story for a small shop with no legal department and wariness about being sued over its use of open source code.

Why is it surprising? Indiana Jones is private IP. The code was published with an OSS license explicitly authorizing its use.

  > It has been trained on a selection of English language and source code from publicly available sources, including code in public repositories on GitHub.

Then you should share your code with a license that reflects that.