3 ms·
The license you have chosen requires attribution. You may not care[1] but the other party still most likely will be in violation if Copilot reproduces a signifi
by eCa 5y ago
The license you have chosen requires attribution. You may not care[1] but the other party still most likely will be in violation if Copilot reproduces a significant chunk of your code.
[1] I also MIT license my public code on Github, and also wouldn’t care that much.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y agoI don't care about attribution. The only reason I use MIT, is so some knucklehead doesn't try to sue me, because they cheezed up my code.
- hedora 5y agoI wonder if the license is still binding in the other direction though. Moving forward, by publishing the code on the Internet you know you’re training an AI to copy it. What if you published a subtle proof of concept that takes out nuclear plants, and then some knucklehead deployed it because Copilot suggested it?
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y agoThis is an interesting thought. I could see certain...agencies doing something like seeding the tech scene with insecure hashing algorithms, and them becoming a part of the Canon, due to consumption by uncritical ML training algorithms. We get back to the old "data quality" conundrum. We need to have a way to rate the quality of our data, which then opens the door to corruption and gaming. The circle of life, I guess...
- saurik 5y agoThen you should use BSD0, not MIT. The assumption should be that people chose the license they chose for a reason, and their intent should be honored. https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y agoProbably. I don't mind it, if they give me credit (I do, on my work), but it's not imperative. Unlike other licenses, I don't think I'll have a bunch of self-appointed juntas going after people that use my code without attribution.