6 ms·

I've given thousands of hours to open source projects, I really think open source is a pillar of modern society. So you would think I am all for something like

by kuon 5y ago

I've given thousands of hours to open source projects, I really think open source is a pillar of modern society. So you would think I am all for something like copilot, but no. At first I thought this was a great feature, because easier access to code, but after some reflection, I am also very skeptical. I am able to make my code open source, because I can make a living out of it, and I have a lot of open source code that I love to share for things like education or private stuff, but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me. If you can suck all the code without even I noticing it, that's not fair. The other thing is code quality. I don't want to sound rude, but there are tons of bad code around. Not necessarily because the author is unskilled, but because the code might not need to be high quality (for example I wrote a script to sort my photos, it was very hastily written and specific to my usage, I used once and was done with it). Also, there are some bad/wrong pattern that are really popular. I am surprised you are able to DMCA a twitch stream because someone whistle india jones theme but in this case it is considered fair use.

judge2020 5y ago
> but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me. No I do not. Even strictly proprietary code can be copied and used in a for-profit way without approval as long as it qualifies for fair use.
- okamiueru 5y ago
  "Something real" and "fair use" don't get along. I'm also not sure fair use trumps licensing, since one is a copyright issue, and the other is the terms of use. You don't get to copy a snippet of GPL code and get away by calling it fair use. At least, I hope it isn't the case.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    > I'm also not sure fair use trumps licensing, since one is a copyright issue, and the other is the terms of use. Licenses and copyright are strictly related - the 'terms of use' in the form of a license simply is a grant for someone to reuse something in full granted they uphold their end of the bargain which might mean (for the GPL) relicensing code that touches said licensed code; but, if someone doesn't agree to the license or they don't uphold their end (such as by releasing their own code under the same license), the license states that the use is now invalid and they're not allowed to copy it in the permissive form provided unless the use passes the fair use doctrine. Now 'fair use' is actually a pretty high bar, and most especially for code - feel free to read 17 USC 107 [0] which lays out how this is determined. What's tough for code is that, in terms of for copying code or using a library, it usually doesn't qualify for the initial requirement "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright". Unless you're taking GPL code and writing up how bad it is, or how efficient is is, chances are the use doesn't fit into fair use. So while I think I was indeed a bit obtuse in saying that code could be used in a fair use way (since that's not what happens in these contexts) it's technically possible. 0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
jefftk 5y ago
> have a lot of open source code that I love to share for things like education or private stuff, but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me. If you can suck all the code without even I noticing it, that's not fair Co-pilot aside, that's already how it works today. If you make something open source, I can use your code to power my business, and I'm under no obligation to hire you. It's great when companies give back to open source, either by supporting the projects they depend on, or by open sourcing their own internal projects, but it's not obligatory. If you don't want people to independently profit from your code, don't release it under a license that allows commercial use
- krono 5y ago
  > If you make something open source, I can use your code to power my business "Open source" isn't a license. You're not allowed to just use any open source software that doesn't contain a license by default.
  - Denvercoder9 5y ago
    The conventional definition of "open source" is software licensed under a OSI-approved license.
    - krono 5y ago
      Does that mean general copyright does not apply to unlicensed open source software? Do any legal precedents exist related to this? I'm honestly curious now.
      - jefftk 5y ago
        "unlicensed open source software" isn't really a thing. If you push something to GitHub with no license it's source-available, not open source.
  - jefftk 5y ago
    The standard definition of "open source" is https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd, which has: "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: ... The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."
edem 5y ago
I second the DMCA, it is ridiculous.
xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
> I am able to make my code open source, because I can make a living out of it, and I have a lot of open source code that I love to share for things like education or private stuff, but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me. If you can suck all the code without even I noticing it, that's not fair. If you license your software such that I can do whatever I want with it, then I can do whatever I want with it. I don't see how you can then go on to claim it isn't fair if I'm using as you allow.
- CameronNemo 5y ago
  Personally, I make a distinction between legal and socially acceptable. If one of the richest corporations on Earth can't be bothered to share patches for permissively licensed code that they use, I will gladly shame them. It's a different story for a small shop with no legal department and wariness about being sued over its use of open source code.
ricardobeat 5y ago
> I am surprised you are able to DMCA a twitch stream because someone whistle india jones theme but in this case it is considered fair use Why is it surprising? Indiana Jones is private IP. The code was published with an OSS license explicitly authorizing its use.
- krono 5y ago
  From the Copilot FAQ, notice there is no specific mention of the term "Open Source": > It has been trained on a selection of English language and source code from publicly available sources, including code in public repositories on GitHub. Meaning GitHub might have also been sourcing from public source / source-available projects that were not OSS licensed at all.
progfix 5y ago
> I have a lot of open source code that I love to share for things like education or private stuff, but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me. Then you should share your code with a license that reflects that.
- kuon 5y ago
  I do. But as long as the repository is public, copilot will feed on it. At least this is what I understood.

by kuon 5y ago

judge2020 5y ago

> but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me. No I do not. Even strictly proprietary code can be copied and used in a for-profit way without approval as long as it qualifies for fair use.

okamiueru 5y ago
"Something real" and "fair use" don't get along. I'm also not sure fair use trumps licensing, since one is a copyright issue, and the other is the terms of use. You don't get to copy a snippet of GPL code and get away by calling it fair use. At least, I hope it isn't the case.
- judge2020 5y ago
  > I'm also not sure fair use trumps licensing, since one is a copyright issue, and the other is the terms of use. Licenses and copyright are strictly related - the 'terms of use' in the form of a license simply is a grant for someone to reuse something in full granted they uphold their end of the bargain which might mean (for the GPL) relicensing code that touches said licensed code; but, if someone doesn't agree to the license or they don't uphold their end (such as by releasing their own code under the same license), the license states that the use is now invalid and they're not allowed to copy it in the permissive form provided unless the use passes the fair use doctrine. Now 'fair use' is actually a pretty high bar, and most especially for code - feel free to read 17 USC 107 [0] which lays out how this is determined. What's tough for code is that, in terms of for copying code or using a library, it usually doesn't qualify for the initial requirement "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright". Unless you're taking GPL code and writing up how bad it is, or how efficient is is, chances are the use doesn't fit into fair use. So while I think I was indeed a bit obtuse in saying that code could be used in a fair use way (since that's not what happens in these contexts) it's technically possible. 0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

jefftk 5y ago

> have a lot of open source code that I love to share for things like education or private stuff, but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me. If you can suck all the code without even I noticing it, that's not fair Co-pilot aside, that's already how it works today. If you make something open source, I can use your code to power my business, and I'm under no obligation to hire you. It's great when companies give back to open source, either by supporting the projects they depend on, or by open sourcing their own internal projects, but it's not obligatory. If you don't want people to independently profit from your code, don't release it under a license that allows commercial use

krono 5y ago
> If you make something open source, I can use your code to power my business "Open source" isn't a license. You're not allowed to just use any open source software that doesn't contain a license by default.
- Denvercoder9 5y ago
  The conventional definition of "open source" is software licensed under a OSI-approved license.
  - krono 5y ago
    Does that mean general copyright does not apply to unlicensed open source software? Do any legal precedents exist related to this? I'm honestly curious now.
    - jefftk 5y ago
      "unlicensed open source software" isn't really a thing. If you push something to GitHub with no license it's source-available, not open source.
- jefftk 5y ago
  The standard definition of "open source" is https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd, which has: "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: ... The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

edem 5y ago

I second the DMCA, it is ridiculous.

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago

> I am able to make my code open source, because I can make a living out of it, and I have a lot of open source code that I love to share for things like education or private stuff, but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me. If you can suck all the code without even I noticing it, that's not fair. If you license your software such that I can do whatever I want with it, then I can do whatever I want with it. I don't see how you can then go on to claim it isn't fair if I'm using as you allow.

CameronNemo 5y ago
Personally, I make a distinction between legal and socially acceptable. If one of the richest corporations on Earth can't be bothered to share patches for permissively licensed code that they use, I will gladly shame them. It's a different story for a small shop with no legal department and wariness about being sued over its use of open source code.

ricardobeat 5y ago

> I am surprised you are able to DMCA a twitch stream because someone whistle india jones theme but in this case it is considered fair use Why is it surprising? Indiana Jones is private IP. The code was published with an OSS license explicitly authorizing its use.

krono 5y ago
From the Copilot FAQ, notice there is no specific mention of the term "Open Source": > It has been trained on a selection of English language and source code from publicly available sources, including code in public repositories on GitHub. Meaning GitHub might have also been sourcing from public source / source-available projects that were not OSS licensed at all.

progfix 5y ago

> I have a lot of open source code that I love to share for things like education or private stuff, but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me. Then you should share your code with a license that reflects that.

kuon 5y ago
I do. But as long as the repository is public, copilot will feed on it. At least this is what I understood.