4 ms·

> 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 hir

by 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."
  - krono 5y ago
    But if there's no license, it's not the license that restricts but common copyright law.
    - jefftk 5y ago
      If there's no license, then it's not open source. This is a term with a standard meaning, and it doesn't just mean that the source is available for reading
      - krono 5y ago
        Ah right, I honestly did not know! Still, if you come across some published source code that does not appear to be licensed and does not specifically define itself as being "Open Source" as defined by the "Open Source Initiative", copyright law applies and you're not allowed to just take it and use it. GitHub specifically uses the words "source code from publicly available sources" when talking about what they used to train their model on. As far as I'm aware public code repos aren't by default "Open Source" as defined by the "Open Source Initiative".
        jefftk 5y ago
        Sorry, I was specifically responding to how my parent views open source. I agree that Copilot was probably trained in part on public code that isn't open source -- GitHub's claim (not saying I agree) is that they don't need a license to train on code.
johnday 5y ago
It sounds like the person you're responding to already releases their code under a non-commercial license. The problem with Copilot is that it may allow commercial enterprises to avoid such a license by copying the code verbatim from their repositories, possibly without any party involved knowing that it's happened.
- jefftk 5y ago
  Where are you seeing that they are using a non-commercial license? (And non-commercial licenses are not open source: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd)
  - johnday 5y ago
    To me, the sentence > 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. implies that they have code which they are sharing under that proviso. Do you read it differently? You are right about the technical distinction of open source from source-available. I think that the GGP (and myself) were both using it colloquially as a shorthand for source-available.
    - oefrha 5y ago
      Is Copilot trained on source available code? If not, then whatever restrictions you may want to apply with your source available code isn’t relevant. The debate is about copyleft.
      - viktree 5y ago
        The RMS function in Quake Source code exists in the copilot training set (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287) is covered under GPL which is source available (see https://github.com/id-Software/Quake-III-Arena/blob/master/code/game/q_math.c#L552 https://github.com/id-Software/Quake-III-Arena/blob/master/c...)
bogwog 5y ago
> I can use your code to power my business, and I'm under no obligation to hire you. Make sure you read those licenses. Just because something is open source doesn't mean that you're free to use it for whatever you want. There are some projects that are open source and free for non-commercial use only.
- jefftk 5y ago
  > open source and free for non-commercial use only That's not open source: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - saurik 5y ago
    You have said this multiple times on this thread now, but in addition to how the OSI getting to unilaterally define the technical definition of "open source" being controversial even within the software engineering community, you really need to be looking at the definition of words "descriptively" and most people seem to put even "shared source" (look but don't touch) models as subsets of the class "open source". Regardless: Copilot doesn't only pick up "open source" code... it picks up any code that has been published under any reason including the large amounts of code that is on GitHub without any license at all or which was literally stolen and leaked onto GitHub. Meanwhile, even open source licenses have restrictions, whether they be "you can't use my work without agreeing to contribute back your work to the collective", various forms of automatic patent grants and associated retaliation clauses, or merely "you have to credit me", a simple limitation almost all open source software comes with which Copilot launders away.
    - oefrha 5y ago
      > it picks up any code that has been published under any reason including the large amounts of code that is on GitHub without any license at all or which was literally stolen and leaked onto GitHub. You are stating a rather arbitrary assumption of yours as a fact, unless you have concrete sources or evidence.
    - kuon 5y ago

by jefftk 5y ago

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."
- krono 5y ago
  But if there's no license, it's not the license that restricts but common copyright law.
  - jefftk 5y ago
    If there's no license, then it's not open source. This is a term with a standard meaning, and it doesn't just mean that the source is available for reading
    - krono 5y ago
      Ah right, I honestly did not know! Still, if you come across some published source code that does not appear to be licensed and does not specifically define itself as being "Open Source" as defined by the "Open Source Initiative", copyright law applies and you're not allowed to just take it and use it. GitHub specifically uses the words "source code from publicly available sources" when talking about what they used to train their model on. As far as I'm aware public code repos aren't by default "Open Source" as defined by the "Open Source Initiative".
      - jefftk 5y ago
        Sorry, I was specifically responding to how my parent views open source. I agree that Copilot was probably trained in part on public code that isn't open source -- GitHub's claim (not saying I agree) is that they don't need a license to train on code.

johnday 5y ago

It sounds like the person you're responding to already releases their code under a non-commercial license. The problem with Copilot is that it may allow commercial enterprises to avoid such a license by copying the code verbatim from their repositories, possibly without any party involved knowing that it's happened.

jefftk 5y ago
Where are you seeing that they are using a non-commercial license? (And non-commercial licenses are not open source: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd)
- johnday 5y ago
  To me, the sentence > 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. implies that they have code which they are sharing under that proviso. Do you read it differently? You are right about the technical distinction of open source from source-available. I think that the GGP (and myself) were both using it colloquially as a shorthand for source-available.
  - oefrha 5y ago
    Is Copilot trained on source available code? If not, then whatever restrictions you may want to apply with your source available code isn’t relevant. The debate is about copyleft.
    - viktree 5y ago
      The RMS function in Quake Source code exists in the copilot training set (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287) is covered under GPL which is source available (see https://github.com/id-Software/Quake-III-Arena/blob/master/code/game/q_math.c#L552 https://github.com/id-Software/Quake-III-Arena/blob/master/c...)

bogwog 5y ago

> I can use your code to power my business, and I'm under no obligation to hire you. Make sure you read those licenses. Just because something is open source doesn't mean that you're free to use it for whatever you want. There are some projects that are open source and free for non-commercial use only.

jefftk 5y ago
> open source and free for non-commercial use only That's not open source: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- saurik 5y ago
  You have said this multiple times on this thread now, but in addition to how the OSI getting to unilaterally define the technical definition of "open source" being controversial even within the software engineering community, you really need to be looking at the definition of words "descriptively" and most people seem to put even "shared source" (look but don't touch) models as subsets of the class "open source". Regardless: Copilot doesn't only pick up "open source" code... it picks up any code that has been published under any reason including the large amounts of code that is on GitHub without any license at all or which was literally stolen and leaked onto GitHub. Meanwhile, even open source licenses have restrictions, whether they be "you can't use my work without agreeing to contribute back your work to the collective", various forms of automatic patent grants and associated retaliation clauses, or merely "you have to credit me", a simple limitation almost all open source software comes with which Copilot launders away.
  - oefrha 5y ago
    > it picks up any code that has been published under any reason including the large amounts of code that is on GitHub without any license at all or which was literally stolen and leaked onto GitHub. You are stating a rather arbitrary assumption of yours as a fact, unless you have concrete sources or evidence.
  - kuon 5y ago