News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by noasaservice on Monday October 17, 2022 @11:20PM (#33242589)
Why not complete that analogy?

What if instead of Copilot, it was a bunch of humans who were searching all the source code they could access and then copying/autocompleting that code, regardless of the license.

Is that still OK? If yes, why?

Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by ctvo on Monday October 17, 2022 @11:36PM (#33242676)
A paid service where tens of hundreds of people search for publicly available code snippets and send them to you? I believe they call that outsourcing in some circles.
Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by jakelazaroff on Monday October 17, 2022 @11:29PM (#33242639)
You're reading too much into my comment. All I'm saying is that Copilot isn't "learning" like a human does.
Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by remram on Monday October 17, 2022 @11:44PM (#33242728)
In this case we'd be sending subpoenas to those people to make sure they hadn't been instructed to disregard licenses or copy large pieces of code verbatim.
Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by didibus on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @12:22AM (#33242951)
That wouldn't be ok, I'm assuming that's what you're implying as well? In any case I would say that's not ok.

Copying code, even if its from a mix of many different places, and the results look like a mosaic, would still be copying.

If the Mturk worker just suggested an implementation they came up with that be fine.

Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by cycomanic on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @12:33AM (#33243015)
Why not make the a ology the other way. If I put massive amounts of code into a database and develop some sort of query language that spits out various parts of the contents of the database based on the query am I covered by fair use?