News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by FeepingCreature on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @03:56AM (#27891068)
Copilot generally (excepting rare cases where it produces snippets verbatim) does not steal code. The GPL restricts distribution, not usage. And (to my knowledge) no open-source license restricts learning from code. I cannot see anyone who doesn't want others to learn from their code ever release code as open-source.
Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by toxik on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @04:39AM (#27891321)
I as an open source author absolutely do not want Microsoft to get richer from using my code, code that I contributed or published for the benefits of other developers.

They took my work, removed my name and trained an advanced pattern matching technique to try to make code like mine and then sell it. It’s so obviously ethically questionable it’s insane.

Developers are absolutely pissed about this, and rightfully so.

Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by necovek on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @04:56AM (#27891423)
Not even copyleft licenses prohibit somebody from earning money from what you released, and that includes Microsoft. The idea behind free software is that it benefits all users equally, even if other developers get the biggest direct benefit.

The best question to ask yourself is if you would be annoyed as much if a company like Black Duck did a similar training or analysis with their OpenHub (openhub.net)?

I think one could even make a case for training an AI in this manner from the leaked Windows code: copyright law treats these generally as "fair use", though how you gained the copy of the code might still be illegal.

IANAL though :)

Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by drran on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @07:49AM (#27892585)
You need to comply with license first before you can use it to defense your position.

Copilot doesn't comply with opensource licenses, so authors of Copilot lost the right to use opensource licensed code permanently, until they settle the case with authors of the code.

Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by wffurr on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @01:59PM (#27897014)
CC-BY-NC explicitly prohibits commercial usage.

It’s also common to see GPL license for non-commercial usage and paid licenses for commercial usage.

Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by necovek on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @03:33PM (#27898189)
Dual licensing with a copyleft license is common if you want to offer an ability for someone to develop a closed-source project: they can perfectly develop a GPL-licensed commercial project without paying anything.

If CC-BY-NC prohibits commercial use, it is not an open source or free software license (which have compatible definitions, but differ in motivations).

AFAIK, Creative Commons was set to create a set of licenses in the spirit of open source for creative works, and I wouldn't expect them to be open source at all.

Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by nanagojo on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @05:27AM (#27891597)
> I as an open source author absolutely do not want Microsoft to get richer from using my code

You are likely using the wrong license then.

Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by drran on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @07:51AM (#27892608)
Copilot doesn't comply with all open source licenses. Which one we should use then to protect our rights?
Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by nmfisher on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @05:10AM (#27891507)
Did you license your code under terms that allowed them to do so?
Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by tyingq on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @08:58AM (#27893163)
Most licenses would require attribution and some notion of the license(s) of the code behind the suggestion.
Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by toxik on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @02:13PM (#27897191)
Screwing over the little guy because he didn’t spend enough time contemplating possible legal troubles with his OS software seems, again, ethically dubious at best.
Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by iaml on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @09:01AM (#27893187)
I wonder if they could generate the correct license to code copilot produces, and maybe even infer the preferred one from repo and generate code that is restricted to that?
Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by twic on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @05:49AM (#27891759)
It doesn't matter what you want. You released your code under an open source license. What matters now is what the license says.
Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by b3morales on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @04:04PM (#27898568)
Well, the license probably requires attribution. Can you point to Copilot fulfilling that requirement?
Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by nojito on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @04:43AM (#27891339)
Then you should have never released it.

Fairly straight forward solution to your very unique problem.

Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by toxik on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @02:18PM (#27897255)
The license for my software was written in a world where AI was not being used to replace me with my own code. Whatever license was chosen, was chosen to deal with the questions and issues known at the time.

It’s such a BS argument to say “your license didn’t anticipate the future, it’s your fault.” No, that’s not how law works.

Furthermore, law is not ethics. I said it’s ethically questionable because that’s what matters. Not if a court will find Microsoft guilty of some kind of overreach.

Anybody with even passing knowledge of law knows this, so please, stuff it somewhere.

Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by FeepingCreature on Wednesday July 21, 2021 @12:51AM (#27902460)
> It’s such a BS argument to say “your license didn’t anticipate the future, it’s your fault.” No, that’s not how law works.

It literally is though.

You don't get to change your mind on an agreement because something happened that you didn't expect.

Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by xdennis on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @10:16AM (#27893989)
> Copilot generally (excepting rare cases where it produces snippets verbatim) does not steal code.

Rare exceptions are not acceptable in other situations.

If you, on rare exceptions, include copyrighted songs in your YouTube videos you still get strikes.

Citibank couldn't recover 900 million dollars it transferred too soon just because it was a rare mistake.

Microsoft shouldn't get a pass.

Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by garmaine on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @05:04AM (#27891465)
The GPL very much restrict derivative works. It's the whole point of the GPL. "Usage" in the context of the GPL does not have the meaning you are using.
Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by goodpoint on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @07:30AM (#27892444)
MIT/BSD also restrict derivative works by requiring attribution. Something that Copilot disregards.
Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by nanagojo on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @05:29AM (#27891618)
It is way more nuanced than that. For example if you never redistribute your work that was a fork from GPL code, then GPL states it's ok to never give back the source.
Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse? by garmaine on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @05:41AM (#27891698)
What we both said is compatible and consistent. The derived work is restricted by the GPL's provisions. Those restrictions just don't require you to distribute the source on demand unless and until you distribute derivative works to other users.