3 ms·

You can't give out something for free without limitations and then complain when someone uses it for something you didn't expect. Well you can complain but no o

You can't give out something for free without limitations and then complain when someone uses it for something you didn't expect. Well you can complain but no one has to listen. Githubs use seems very in the spirit of open data and code. Using open source to help others.

saurik 5y ago
We didn't give it away for free without limitations: we carefully drafted licenses to attach to our code to establish legal boundaries on what we considered acceptable; my code, for example, is under GPL, which says "I am OK with you using the products of my labor under the requirement that you will then let me use the product of your labor"... hell: almost every bit of open source code has at minimum "I am OK with you using the products of my labor as long as you are at least willing to give me credit somewhere", a minimal limitation that Copilot doesn't honor (and prevents its users from honoring): Copilot is essentially a giant code launderer designed to strip away licenses from effort that was only contingently given to the community.
lal 5y ago
Licenses explicitly are the set of permissions and limitations for someone to use the code. Even most permissive open source licenses require that you maintain an attribution with the text of the license in derivative works. Copyleft licenses and in particular the GPL put very strict requirements on what types of licenses are acceptable in any derivative works. In literally no open source license except "do-whatever-you-want-i-dont-give-a-damn-bye"-type licenses like WTFPL are you giving something away for free without limitations. That's not even close to what open source means, at all. Open source and public domain are not synonymous terms. And in those cases where there are literally any terms in a license, use of Copilot obviously violates the terms of the license, unless the user operating Copilot goes back, finds the code Copilot is stealing from, and makes the proper attribution / otherwise ensures that they are meeting the terms of the license of the stolen code.

saurik 5y ago

We didn't give it away for free without limitations: we carefully drafted licenses to attach to our code to establish legal boundaries on what we considered acceptable; my code, for example, is under GPL, which says "I am OK with you using the products of my labor under the requirement that you will then let me use the product of your labor"... hell: almost every bit of open source code has at minimum "I am OK with you using the products of my labor as long as you are at least willing to give me credit somewhere", a minimal limitation that Copilot doesn't honor (and prevents its users from honoring): Copilot is essentially a giant code launderer designed to strip away licenses from effort that was only contingently given to the community.

lal 5y ago

Licenses explicitly are the set of permissions and limitations for someone to use the code. Even most permissive open source licenses require that you maintain an attribution with the text of the license in derivative works. Copyleft licenses and in particular the GPL put very strict requirements on what types of licenses are acceptable in any derivative works. In literally no open source license except "do-whatever-you-want-i-dont-give-a-damn-bye"-type licenses like WTFPL are you giving something away for free without limitations. That's not even close to what open source means, at all. Open source and public domain are not synonymous terms. And in those cases where there are literally any terms in a license, use of Copilot obviously violates the terms of the license, unless the user operating Copilot goes back, finds the code Copilot is stealing from, and makes the proper attribution / otherwise ensures that they are meeting the terms of the license of the stolen code.