4 ms·
> If Copilot is reciting pieces of GPL code (which we know it can), then not only does it need to point out where it has grabbed that code from, Copilot itself
by caconym_ 5y ago
> If Copilot is reciting pieces of GPL code (which we know it can), then not only does it need to point out where it has grabbed that code from, Copilot itself is (probably) required to be GPL-licensed.
I'm no GPL expert, but if you could trivially swap in a model trained on a different corpus, I think that's enough separation between the Copilot code and the model data that GPLing the former is not necessary. IIRC there is an "at arm's length" criterion that typically applies in cases like this.
- taneq 5y agoZip can ‘recite’ GPL code by unzipping a source code archive. The fact that you can swap in a different zip file ‘model’ that was ‘trained’ on different data doesn’t mean the first zip file isn’t GPL’d.
- caconym_ 5y agoIf a non-GPL'd zip implementation is used to unzip an archive of GPL'd code, does that mean the zip implementation is in violation of the GPL? That's the point of my comment that you replied to, and it is a response to a specific claim (which I quoted) in its parent. I have not and will not make the (nonsensical) claim that you seem to be suggesting I've made--that the ability to change out the model somehow negates the licenses of code used to train a different version of the model.
- taneq 5y agoAh, I think I see the disconnect. In the post you replied to, they said “copilot itself” (ie. the copilot model plus code) should be GPL’d. I missed that your reply was about whether the code specifically needs to be GPL’d. I agree with you there, but it’s also a bit of a tangent from the original point (which was that if copilot can regurgitate GPL code then it’s necessarily a derivative work.)