10 ms·

The example you linked to is talking about a 16 line function from the Quake source. The Quake source is 167,594 lines in total (counting the C code only). Does

The example you linked to is talking about a 16 line function from the Quake source. The Quake source is 167,594 lines in total (counting the C code only). Does that really fail to meet the standard for "smallest excerpt"?

emodendroket 5y ago
Not only that, but it is clearly someone going out of their way to make it do that. I’m not sure that that is a reasonable test of how the program typically behaves.
- hmfrh 5y ago
  > I’m not sure that that is a reasonable test of how the program typically behaves. That's not what people care about, people care about their copyright being blatantly violated by a massive corporation _without any consequences_.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    Ok, but is “I can go out of my way to make it misbehave” adequate proof that the copyright is being violated?
    - ghoward 5y ago
      Not GP. Yes, it is, because that means that the algorithm will produce that copyrighted code regardless of the intent of the person who makes it misbehave. People could both accidentally and "accidentally" make it reproduce copyrighted code. In the first case, it's unintentional. In the second, how could you prove it's intentional? Because of this whole mess, I am actually adding clauses to FOSS licenses that I am writing, just to ensure that my copyright on my code is not infringed by code laundering.
      - rndgermandude 5y ago
        >I am actually adding clauses to FOSS licenses that I am writing Doesn't this make your new licenses incompatible to a lot of existing licenses?
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Not necessarily. If you do it right, you've got a perfectly GPL-compatible license (because such laundering is, technically, a violation of the GPL… probably) – it's just a license that's more explicit about what's a license violation. Law isn't code.
        heavyset_go 5y ago
        GPL code and its derivatives can't be distributed with additional restrictions.
        hnfong 5y ago
        GPL explicitly forbids re-licensing under more restrictive terms. So either the added terms are not more restrictive, which basically means they are unnecessary and have no real effect; or they are more restrictive, which is incompatible with the GPL. You can't have things go both ways. It seems that your argument is "we're not adding restrictions, we're just saying what we think Copyright law / the GPL should actually be like." But unfortunately you can't "clarify" Copyright Law or "clarify" the GPL by adding terms. Ultimately courts decide that. (Of course, if somehow your "clarification" happens to align with a court decision, then maybe it will work after all. But in theory your "clarification" is still not necessary and has no additional effect....)
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        > But in theory your "clarification" is still not necessary and has no additional effect.... Except your clarification will be interpreted by a court of law. “This license is compatible with the GPL and I can interpret the GPL in a way that lets me do something this license says I can't” is much less likely to stand than “well maybe the author thought the GPL said this, but it actually says my interpretation”. This, of course, presumes that such a license is actually compatible with the GPL, something I'm getting less and less certain of over time. (What constitutes a compiled form? If a predictive model doesn't count – which it might not, since it outputs source code, very much unlike how compiled programs normally work – then my argument falls down. And many other things would also knock the argument down; I'm not confident enough that all my assumptions are right, or that they should be right.)
    - formerly_proven 5y ago
      Double standards ensue. Tool that could be used to violate copyright := Gets prosecuted by MPAA and friends, legislation is passed to make use / development / distribution of such tools illegal Bigcorp ships the ML equivalent of ALLCODE.tgz, but you actually gotta look in the no/dont/open/this/folder/gplviolations/quake.c folder := Is this adequate proof that copyright is being violated?
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        Since I do not work for the MPAA, I don't see why you expect me to answer for them. Half of the article's argument is that any argument you could use to shut down Copilot would also give a lot of power to such entities if it were accepted.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    Honestly, I feel most people don't care about that. What they do care about, is the risk of Copilot making the user liable for copyright infringement. Even a possibility of it spewing out non-public-domain code should be considered a showstopper for any use of Copilot-generated code in a commercial project. Can Copilot produce licensed code verbatim, in enough quantities to matter, with a license your business would be infringing? Yes. Can you easily tell by looking at the output? No. Could someone end up suing you over it? Maybe, if they cared enough to find out. Can you honestly tell your investors, or a company you seek to be acquired by, that nobody else can have valid copyright claim against your code? No.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      > Can Copilot produce licensed code verbatim, in enough quantities to matter, with a license your business would be infringing? Yes. Can you easily tell by looking at the output? No. Could someone end up suing you over it? Maybe, if they cared enough to find out. Can you honestly tell your investors, or a company you seek to be acquired by, that nobody else can have valid copyright claim against your code? No. Well aren't all your assertions exactly the point of contention?
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        Well, the "enough quantities to matter" part wasn't tested in courts yet, but I fail to see a way to rule for "No" here in a way that wouldn't gift us an universal way to turn any code into public domain, destroying source code licensing as a concept. Other than this part, the first two claims have already been demonstrated, and the rest follow from them.
        emodendroket 5y ago
        But that is in fact the most fundamental question here. And I’m not fully sold on the idea either that this is going to happen in real-world usage or that a single function in a massive program constitutes a large enough portion to be infringing.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
stefan_ 5y ago
That excerpt has its own Wikipedia page, of course it meets the threshold of originality. In any case, once you are discussing this, you have entered the area of fair use; that is an admission of copyright violation.
- mod50ack 5y ago
  Having a WP page isn't proof of threshold-passing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BACH_motif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BACH_motif But there is also actually an issue about laundering and what constitutes "use". But there is also de minimis to consider. And EVERYTHING will depend on jurisdiction of course. IANAL
- coldacid 5y ago
  Fair use is not a violation of copyright but a specified (and since 1976 statutory) exception to it. You are clearly impugning the doctrine with your comment.

emodendroket 5y ago

Not only that, but it is clearly someone going out of their way to make it do that. I’m not sure that that is a reasonable test of how the program typically behaves.

hmfrh 5y ago
> I’m not sure that that is a reasonable test of how the program typically behaves. That's not what people care about, people care about their copyright being blatantly violated by a massive corporation _without any consequences_.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  Ok, but is “I can go out of my way to make it misbehave” adequate proof that the copyright is being violated?
  - ghoward 5y ago
    Not GP. Yes, it is, because that means that the algorithm will produce that copyrighted code regardless of the intent of the person who makes it misbehave. People could both accidentally and "accidentally" make it reproduce copyrighted code. In the first case, it's unintentional. In the second, how could you prove it's intentional? Because of this whole mess, I am actually adding clauses to FOSS licenses that I am writing, just to ensure that my copyright on my code is not infringed by code laundering.
    - rndgermandude 5y ago
      >I am actually adding clauses to FOSS licenses that I am writing Doesn't this make your new licenses incompatible to a lot of existing licenses?
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Not necessarily. If you do it right, you've got a perfectly GPL-compatible license (because such laundering is, technically, a violation of the GPL… probably) – it's just a license that's more explicit about what's a license violation. Law isn't code.
        heavyset_go 5y ago
        GPL code and its derivatives can't be distributed with additional restrictions.
        hnfong 5y ago
        GPL explicitly forbids re-licensing under more restrictive terms. So either the added terms are not more restrictive, which basically means they are unnecessary and have no real effect; or they are more restrictive, which is incompatible with the GPL. You can't have things go both ways. It seems that your argument is "we're not adding restrictions, we're just saying what we think Copyright law / the GPL should actually be like." But unfortunately you can't "clarify" Copyright Law or "clarify" the GPL by adding terms. Ultimately courts decide that. (Of course, if somehow your "clarification" happens to align with a court decision, then maybe it will work after all. But in theory your "clarification" is still not necessary and has no additional effect....)
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        > But in theory your "clarification" is still not necessary and has no additional effect.... Except your clarification will be interpreted by a court of law. “This license is compatible with the GPL and I can interpret the GPL in a way that lets me do something this license says I can't” is much less likely to stand than “well maybe the author thought the GPL said this, but it actually says my interpretation”. This, of course, presumes that such a license is actually compatible with the GPL, something I'm getting less and less certain of over time. (What constitutes a compiled form? If a predictive model doesn't count – which it might not, since it outputs source code, very much unlike how compiled programs normally work – then my argument falls down. And many other things would also knock the argument down; I'm not confident enough that all my assumptions are right, or that they should be right.)
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    Double standards ensue. Tool that could be used to violate copyright := Gets prosecuted by MPAA and friends, legislation is passed to make use / development / distribution of such tools illegal Bigcorp ships the ML equivalent of ALLCODE.tgz, but you actually gotta look in the no/dont/open/this/folder/gplviolations/quake.c folder := Is this adequate proof that copyright is being violated?
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      Since I do not work for the MPAA, I don't see why you expect me to answer for them. Half of the article's argument is that any argument you could use to shut down Copilot would also give a lot of power to such entities if it were accepted.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Honestly, I feel most people don't care about that. What they do care about, is the risk of Copilot making the user liable for copyright infringement. Even a possibility of it spewing out non-public-domain code should be considered a showstopper for any use of Copilot-generated code in a commercial project. Can Copilot produce licensed code verbatim, in enough quantities to matter, with a license your business would be infringing? Yes. Can you easily tell by looking at the output? No. Could someone end up suing you over it? Maybe, if they cared enough to find out. Can you honestly tell your investors, or a company you seek to be acquired by, that nobody else can have valid copyright claim against your code? No.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    > Can Copilot produce licensed code verbatim, in enough quantities to matter, with a license your business would be infringing? Yes. Can you easily tell by looking at the output? No. Could someone end up suing you over it? Maybe, if they cared enough to find out. Can you honestly tell your investors, or a company you seek to be acquired by, that nobody else can have valid copyright claim against your code? No. Well aren't all your assertions exactly the point of contention?
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      Well, the "enough quantities to matter" part wasn't tested in courts yet, but I fail to see a way to rule for "No" here in a way that wouldn't gift us an universal way to turn any code into public domain, destroying source code licensing as a concept. Other than this part, the first two claims have already been demonstrated, and the rest follow from them.
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        But that is in fact the most fundamental question here. And I’m not fully sold on the idea either that this is going to happen in real-world usage or that a single function in a massive program constitutes a large enough portion to be infringing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

stefan_ 5y ago

That excerpt has its own Wikipedia page, of course it meets the threshold of originality. In any case, once you are discussing this, you have entered the area of fair use; that is an admission of copyright violation.

mod50ack 5y ago
Having a WP page isn't proof of threshold-passing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BACH_motif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BACH_motif But there is also actually an issue about laundering and what constitutes "use". But there is also de minimis to consider. And EVERYTHING will depend on jurisdiction of course. IANAL
coldacid 5y ago
Fair use is not a violation of copyright but a specified (and since 1976 statutory) exception to it. You are clearly impugning the doctrine with your comment.