3 ms·

I'm a big proponent of open source and I'm usually not nice with bad moves of GitHub. For example, i find stupid to use vscode and believe that it is open sourc

I'm a big proponent of open source and I'm usually not nice with bad moves of GitHub. For example, i find stupid to use vscode and believe that it is open source when it is a lie. But, in that case, I think that the things that are put to charge GitHub are not right. I think that the idea is nice and it is fair from open source code. Anyone is free of downloading free software and doing something similar, and it is nice. I just find the product itself is stupid, and it is for users to be smart enough not to use that knowing that their is a risk of them being sued for involuntary violating copyright. And GitHub might be at risk if it is a paid service as the companies could sue them back by pretending that they expected the code generated by GitHub to be safe for commercial use. Also, I would think that GH would have abused if they used 'private repo' codes to train their model without permission.

ghoward 5y ago
Unfortunately, just because code is open source doesn't mean that there aren't terms of use attached with it. One of the simplest and most widely used terms is attribution. This means that if Copilot does not attribute code when it copies and modifies it, then it is violating most open source licenses. Full stop.
- greatgib 5y ago
  My point is that somehow, it is not copilot that is violating the licenses, but the code that is generated is. So, if you just use copilot to generate random things, you are ok. But if you try to use the generated code for anything: distribution, selling, eventually usage. Then, you are violating the licenses in the same way as you took yourself the parts of code to reuse. It is possible users of copilot that should avoid that or be very careful to check any line produced (that is almost impossible). Also, by itself, copying one or two lines of code can hardly be limited by copyright. But, as we so, copilot can spit big full block of code from existing projects.
  - ghoward 5y ago
    You have good points, but I would argue that Copilot itself is the entity distributing copyrighted code since there are times when it copies code verbatim. That puts the legal onus on Copilot itself.

ghoward 5y ago

Unfortunately, just because code is open source doesn't mean that there aren't terms of use attached with it. One of the simplest and most widely used terms is attribution. This means that if Copilot does not attribute code when it copies and modifies it, then it is violating most open source licenses. Full stop.

greatgib 5y ago
My point is that somehow, it is not copilot that is violating the licenses, but the code that is generated is. So, if you just use copilot to generate random things, you are ok. But if you try to use the generated code for anything: distribution, selling, eventually usage. Then, you are violating the licenses in the same way as you took yourself the parts of code to reuse. It is possible users of copilot that should avoid that or be very careful to check any line produced (that is almost impossible). Also, by itself, copying one or two lines of code can hardly be limited by copyright. But, as we so, copilot can spit big full block of code from existing projects.
- ghoward 5y ago
  You have good points, but I would argue that Copilot itself is the entity distributing copyrighted code since there are times when it copies code verbatim. That puts the legal onus on Copilot itself.