News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:GitHub Copilot emits GPL code by goodpoint on Friday April 21, 2023 @02:44PM (#35658179)
The title is true, but the claim that coedium is not violating licenses is false.

Many licenses still require attribution and Coedium is violating them.

Re:GitHub Copilot emits GPL code by abigail95 on Friday April 21, 2023 @03:35PM (#35658882)
Did the accept the license terms or are they using it under fair use?
Re:GitHub Copilot emits GPL code by epylar on Friday April 21, 2023 @03:04PM (#35658474)
The crux of this is at what point is the code being copied, and is that copying allowed under the license? For example, maybe --

* Training an AI with the code is allowed legally.

* Storing model weights is allowed legally.

* Querying the AI with those model weights is allowed legally.

Or maybe not.

Re:GitHub Copilot emits GPL code by challengedchip on Friday April 21, 2023 @04:26PM (#35659592)
It seems like a stretch to argue that the model isn't "a work based on" GPL code when that GPL code is an input to a deterministic algorithm from which the model is produced. So, my bet is on point #1.

The only ambiguity as far as I can tell is GPL covers "source code", "machine-readable Corresponding Source", and "object code form", and it's not explicit whether vector-fields count as any of those things. I doubt anyone would seriously argue that zipping and then un-zipping some GPL source code means you don't need to respect the original license. LLMs are different in that they're lossy compared to the zip format - does the nature of this lossiness invalidate the intent of the GPL's original language? I doubt it.

Re:GitHub Copilot emits GPL code by goodpoint on Saturday April 22, 2023 @08:55AM (#35666152)
Again, this is not about GPL only. Even MIT requires attribution.