> You're not a piece of software, so the areas of copyright law that are applicable are completely different. (And yes, copyright does acknowledge a minimal amo

> You're not a piece of software, so the areas of copyright law that are applicable are completely different. (And yes, copyright does acknowledge a minimal amount required to be copyrightable - but that minimal amount may sometimes be argued to be a single line.) Putting aside the philosophical aspects of this statement, you proved my point. I said that the ultimate person held liable for violating a license is not a tool, but the person choosing to integrate suggested changes by the tool. But now somehow you expect me to believe that the person that built an automaton, but is not directing the automaton, and certainly doesn't have final say in whether or not to incorporate the automaton's suggestions is at legally culpable, because they're being held to a stricter standard? If that was legal standard with any tool, then literally every manufacturer of every tool would be held liable for any and all misuse. Obviously, this is not the case. > Legally speaking, Copilot isn't advertised with multiple available language models. It isn't presented that way, so it won't be treated that way. It will be treated as a singular piece of software. Actually speaking, you're not a lawyer, and that this is INCREDIBLY controversial statement, that doesn't really standup to much scrutiny, since there is a bright line that separating the two. Even if Github was ruled against (and they won't be), case law is filled with examples where the injunctive relief is limited to claims presented (in this case source related to a specific a work) rather than the entire system including playback device and the recording.