3 ms·
But that fast inverse square root example is particularly interesting because it is also a derivative work. Carmack did not invent it, and several variations of
by Joeri 5y ago
But that fast inverse square root example is particularly interesting because it is also a derivative work. Carmack did not invent it, and several variations of it had been passed around over time.
Algorithms should not be subject to copyright, that way lies madness. It would prevent new generations from building on top of the work of their predecessors, because copyright lasts a very long time. The amounts of code that github copilot reproduces fall squarely into the “shouldn’t be subject to copyright” domain for me, even if they pass the bar for originality.
- klodolph 5y agoSomething which is a “derivative work” is still copyrighted. In fact, by definition, a “derivative work” is copyrightable. It’s the minimum threshold at which something, based on something else, gets its own, new copyright. The algorithm is not copyrighted, but the source code of the function is copyrighted. You could learn how the algorithm works by reading the function, and then write your own function that implements the same algorithm. Algorithms are not copyrightable, they are not subject to copyright. Source code is copyrightable. Copilot is not reproducing just the algorithm, it is spitting out large chunks of the copyrighted source code, verbatim.