3 ms·

If someone could show that the "copilot" started "generating" code verbatim (or nearly verbatim) from some GPL-licensed work, especially if that section of code

If someone could show that the "copilot" started "generating" code verbatim (or nearly verbatim) from some GPL-licensed work, especially if that section of code was somehow novel or specific to a narrow domain, I suspect they'd have a case. I don't know much about OpenAICodex, but if it's anything like GPT-3, or uses that under the hood, then it's very likely that certain sequences are simply memorized, which seems like the maximal case for claiming derivative works. On the other hand, if someone has GPL'd code that implements a simple counter, I doubt the courts would pay much attention. I do wonder, though, if GPL owners worried about their code being shanghaied for this purpose could file arbitration claims and exploit some particularly consumer-friendly laws in California which force companies to pay fees like when free speech dissidents filed arbitrations against Patreon.[0] Patreon is being forced to arbitrate 72 claims individually (per its own terms) and pay all fees per JAMS rules. IANAL, so I don't know the exact contours of these rules, or if copyright claims could be raised in this way, or even if GitHub's agreements are vulnerable to this loophole, but it'd be interesting. [0]https://www.dailydot.com/debug/patreon-suing-owen-benjamin-fans/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/patreon-suing-owen-benjamin-f... (see second update from July 31).

not2b 5y ago
You don't need to have a winnable case, just enough of a case for a large company (hello Oracle) to sue a small one. Is any version of Oracle-owned Java in the corpus? Or any of the DBs they bought (MySQL)?
sideshowb 5y ago
But what would we think to the legal start-up that automatically checked all of github to see whether the ai could be persuaded to spit out a significant amount of any project code verbatim? Somehow p-hacking springs to mind
duskwuff 5y ago
> If someone could show that the "copilot" started "generating" code verbatim (or nearly verbatim) from some GPL-licensed work... Under the right circumstances, Copilot will recite a GPL copyright header. It isn't a huge step from that to some other commonly repeated hunk of GPLed code -- I'd be particularly curious whether some protected portion of automake/autoconf code shows up often enough that it'd repeat that too.
BlueTemplar 5y ago
It doesn't matter, Copilot isn't human, therefore it isn't considered as an author, and therefore cannot do derivative works. The issue is with the users of Copilot potentially violating copyright and licences (non-attribution for instance) and with Microsoft facilitating it. (See also : A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.)

not2b 5y ago

You don't need to have a winnable case, just enough of a case for a large company (hello Oracle) to sue a small one. Is any version of Oracle-owned Java in the corpus? Or any of the DBs they bought (MySQL)?

sideshowb 5y ago

But what would we think to the legal start-up that automatically checked all of github to see whether the ai could be persuaded to spit out a significant amount of any project code verbatim? Somehow p-hacking springs to mind

duskwuff 5y ago

> If someone could show that the "copilot" started "generating" code verbatim (or nearly verbatim) from some GPL-licensed work... Under the right circumstances, Copilot will recite a GPL copyright header. It isn't a huge step from that to some other commonly repeated hunk of GPLed code -- I'd be particularly curious whether some protected portion of automake/autoconf code shows up often enough that it'd repeat that too.

BlueTemplar 5y ago

It doesn't matter, Copilot isn't human, therefore it isn't considered as an author, and therefore cannot do derivative works. The issue is with the users of Copilot potentially violating copyright and licences (non-attribution for instance) and with Microsoft facilitating it. (See also : A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.)