9 ms·

GitHub’s AI Copilot Might Get You Sued If You Use It

77 points by NmAmDa 5y ago

spywaregorilla 5y ago
I feel like its pushing for a future where source available becomes equivalent to open source.
- NmAmDa 5y ago
  I think this equivalence is what supposed to be. At least availability for non-commercial purposes.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  But all the code used IS open source; this does NOT mean anyone is free to use it in e.g. commercial or differently licensed products. I mean there's some licenses out there that do allow for it (I'm not that well versed in OS licenses), but open source code often comes with caveats. GPL for example makes it mandatory for you to make any changes you make to it open source yourself, making any GPL-licensed code suggested by Copilot unusable in a commercial closed-source application.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    > But all the code used IS open source; this does NOT mean anyone is free to use it in e.g. commercial or differently licensed products. That is source available, not open source.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    >But all the code used IS open source All the code used is source-available but not necessarily open source. If you push a repository to GitHub with no license, it's not open source. In 2015, the number of repositories with a license was around 20%: https://github.blog/2015-03-09-open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/2015-03-09-open-source-license-usage-on-...
  - kroltan 5y ago
    https://twitter.com/NoraDotCodes/status/1412741339771461635 https://twitter.com/NoraDotCodes/status/1412741339771461635 Seems that Github used any public repository, not just ones with open-source licenses. This could include source-available code or any other kind of "visible, but nonfree" license.
  - dataviz1000 5y ago
    Are you sure that is how the GPL-license works? I thought you only have to provide the source if you share the code with someone else. If you are hired to write code and sign a contract that the copyright of the code belongs to the person who hired you, the owner can extend and use the GPL code closed-source. Only if the owner decides to share the code do they have to tack on a GPL compliant license.
    - Hamuko 5y ago
      If you distribute the product built with GPL licensed code, then you need to make ths source code available. It's the distribution aspect that's crucial and for example SaaS products do not have to disclose their backend code because a user remotely accesses GPL code through their browser.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
  Open source means many different things to many different people: that's why we have licenses. And that's why talking about "open source" often elides important details. When author(s) license a project under CC0/public domain, their vision of open source is dramatically different than a project licensed under AGPL3.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    Yes, and what I'm saying is that this feels like its pushing for anything that is source available to become true open source with no limitations, including due to practicality, attribution.
- alok-g 5y ago
  First off, "open source" does not typically mean free of any kind of restrictions, and that is the entire point of this debate. So "source available" becomes equivalent to "open source" would only mean some open-source license applies by default, whereas under Berne Convention, copyright applies by default. Anyways, I am taking your statement to mean what you perhaps actually meant below. Think about what would happen if this is applied to everything. Anything being available becomes free of restrictions. Then all books published become openly available for anyone to copy or print. Even compiled software becomes free of restrictions, which anyone can copy freely. This is basically demise of copyright laws itself, which would be disasterous. In case I misunderstood your comment, please clarify.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    By open source in this context I mean totally open with no requirements, including attribution. > Think about what would happen if this is applied to everything. Anything being available becomes free of restrictions. Then all books published become openly available for anyone to copy or print. Even compiled software becomes free of restrictions, which anyone can copy freely. This is basically demise of copyright laws itself, which would be disasterous. I think standards for code should be different from art. They're different concepts. Art you want to protect a specific expression. Code you want to protect the output of an expression. Everyone's talking about how this tool spits out code verbatim, but who cares? What if my tool spits out your python2 code in python3 code? What if it also just fluffs it a little to read differently but perform similarly. It doesn't need to do this explicitly either, it can just guarantee that no outputted code matches an original work exactly but get to the same place. I can make the code substantially different, while keeping the output exactly the same. But we don't get anywhere but generating continuously obtuse implementations of the same thing for stylistic differences. Functionality isn't copyrightable for good reason. edit: and the example of rewriting the code in a different language in a different style probably still is technically copyright violation, but it'll be extremely difficult to win that trial in case, and thus is a stupid rule.
    - alok-g 5y ago
      I would like to brainstorm more on this. Perhaps offline would make more sense. I agree that for code, the function is more important than form. The "ideas" behind the function are protected by patents, not copyrights as you recognize already. If there are no inventive steps involved, then of course, patents do not come into picture and the function sees no protection, only the expression (form) part does. I do think there is creative expression involved in writing code as well, however, I need to understand your point better. Code is just being written in a programming language, whereas a prose/poem is written in a natural language. Both can involve creative expression. I would like to hear more about how exactly you are distinguishing the two which may hold in form of say a revised law. What would a revision to the law look like which enables the code to be always free of creative expression (that copyright protects) but still leave books, paintings, etc., still being open to copyrights protection. If the argument is only that the writer of the code is not interested in the form, only the function, they are free to put their code in the public domain, not making use of the copyright protection. And as far as protecting function is concerned, they may make use of patents where applicable. In most other respects (am ignoring other IP laws), the "openness" you ask for is already there.
andybak 5y ago
Am I the only person who feels that it's copyright that's the issue rather than machine learning training sets? Consider a new additional feature added on to Copilot - a language aware rewriting tool that transforms the initial generated code into a new form with equivalent functionality. It would be nearly impossible to trace the original code or make a copyright claim. However - you could use this same trick directly on copyrighted code. Now things are even murkier... But I would argue that this is essentially what our brains are doing. I've read code, got the gist of it and written my own version. Technically it's not a clean-room reimplementation but an average coder wouldn't realistically expect to get sued for copyright for doing this. Maybe they should but if you're an open source advocate and you've reached this position then there's something very weird going on. I always thought the idea of open source was to use copyright against itself because we believed in openness. Not embracing it and just throwing out one small aspect of it.
- king_magic 5y ago
  but an average coder wouldn't realistically expect to get sued for copyright for doing this Yeah, but they absolutely could if they copied code verbatim, which is what Copilot is often doing.
  - the8472 5y ago
    For very small values of often. https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitation#results https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitatio...
    - bluefirebrand 5y ago
      Which means that if every one of us was using it, many of us would be using copyrighted code by the end of a single day.
    - Zababa 5y ago
      You're citing a study done by Github on their own product, on something that has generated lots of backlash over the last week. I would take it seriously if it was an independant study, but right now it's hard to believe it.
nathan_phoenix 5y ago
I think that it's now in a gray area and that we'll see if it's legal or not in the upcoming years. Because let's be honest, the current legal systems weren't designed for ML and AI...
- cmpb 5y ago
  And yet they'll get shoehorned into our legal systems regardless. It seems like legal systems need a more adequate revising process, something to help refactor after all the shit we've shoved in over the decades
  - voakbasda 5y ago
    It is called Revolution. No amount of reform will unseat the reigning oligarchy. The system is too corrupt to be reformed from within. Fairly certain these statements hold true for every country.
  - nathan_phoenix 5y ago
    Seems more and more like the current legal systems are like huge legacy projects. They desperately need a redo, but so much depends on them that one is afraid of touching them.
binarymax 5y ago
The hilarious thing about this, and no offense to anyone, is that a lot of public code on github is terrible (even mine!). Garbage in, garbage out, as they say.
Hamuko 5y ago
https://archive.ph/gBPLC https://archive.ph/gBPLC
kevincox 5y ago
> stole it from a code repository protected by a license. This is a common misconception. The license doesn't protect the code. In fact license are about removing protection (in certain situations). It is copyright which protects the code.
- alok-g 5y ago
  That is just picking on semantics. License is indeed granting some rights that would not have been under copyrights, however, the license is placing some limitations still, which are being placed to protect "something" -- This something may be freedom (free as a bird) of FOSS software or whatever. It's understood that this protection still rests on the copyright laws.
  - kevincox 5y ago
    That is a way you could look at it, but to me it just seems to be setting people up to be confused. The license isn't really limiting you at all. It is just specifying conditions in which it grants some rights. For example the GPL isn't limiting your use of the code in closed-source software. It is simply granting your rights to use the code only if you release your code under the GPL. However I think that you are right when phrased like this. If you assume that you use the code, then the license does effectively apply restrictions. But again, I wouldn't want to presuppose that someone is using the code. It puts the decision in the wrong place. But still this is quite different from the original framing. In the context of the article the problem isn't that the code was protected by a license, the problem was that the code is protected by copyright. This problem could be worked around if you complied with the license such it gave you permission, however the point remains, if you revoke all of the licenses the original problem remains.
    - alok-g 5y ago
      Yes, you are right from semantic standpoint. I already fully agree. >> This problem could be worked around if you complied with the license such it gave you permission, however the point remains, if you revoke all of the licenses the original problem remains. Absolutely right. If the code used for training data did not come with a license (i.e., it retains full copyright by default), the problem isn't solved. It's rather bigger as you have noted. However, the OP is still making the right point. If the conditions/limitations which came along with the license are not honored, that becomes a copyright violation, and hence, the developers need to be careful or they might get sued. >> GitHub’s AI Copilot Might Get You Sued If You Use It Github Copilot has placed the responsibility on the developer, so it's important that the developers understand all this.
emveeoh 5y ago
I do believe there is a legal liability here on the person using the tool, but not on GitHub. GitHub would only need to remove the 'auto-insertion' of the code to get around any liability. Then, it would be on YOU if you chose to copy-paste their provided suggestions into your own code.
mbesto 5y ago
I keep seeing developers weigh in on their thoughts about copyright/legal issues but no IP legal experts. Why are people taking any of this without reviewing it with, ya know, lawyers? (for the record, I loathe lawyers like the rest of you, but they have a purpose here) Just like when congressmen try to talk about tech and developers bemoan "you have no idea what you're talking about, stop trying", can developers just take a back seat before becoming a bunch of keyboard warriors here? Telling people they "might get sued" is boring and unhelpful. If you think there is a legal implication - then consult a lawyer. Just like a lawyer would consult their web developer if CSS was broken on their website. That being said - I think it's entirely okay for developers to say "I did not explicitly choose to let Copilot use my data as a training set and I'm taking my code off GitHub until that is done". PS - I want grellas back :(
- onli 5y ago
  Julia Reda did weigh in: https://juliareda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/ https://juliareda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringin...
  - louthy 5y ago
    That seems to entirely ignore that Copilot has 'generated' GPL protected code verbatim, even down to the comments. There appears to be exact copies of certain code segments within their model, and that is being exactly copied out. Doesn't that fall under copyright protection?
    - onli 5y ago
      Where I live: It does fall under it, if the code is sufficient complex enough (e.g. there is evident originality) to be protected under copyright in the first place.
    - jolux 5y ago
      She does say she doesn’t think most snippets meet the originality criteria.
qayxc 5y ago
The exaggerations won't stop now, will they? First of all, it's not as if CoPilot spits out verbatim replica of training data on every other prompt. Secondly, the consequences of accidentally copying code by means of using this tool are pretty minor. The author acts as if copypasta from StackOverflow, RosettaCode and similar sites is NOT a daily occurrence (and can't even be checked in the case of closed source software). Fake gurus like Siraj Raval [0] can manage to literally steal - as in copying other people's work and claiming it as their own - for years without consequences and face ZERO legal backlash even after being exposed. Some of his repos had hundreds or even thousands of stars and forks on GitHub, while the original authors he copied from got no attention or credit at all. If this is what people can get away with who do this knowingly and deliberately and with entire projects, then I really have to wonder what the fuss is about when an ML model occasionally spits out a few lines of code snippets verbatim from its training set. [0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A
- Hamuko 5y ago
  All stuff on Stack Overflow has a CC BY-SA license though, so the license burden is quite minor. Meanwhile most stuff on GitHub is (most likely still) unlicensed, meaning that it cannot be used in any way.
  - pantsforbirds 5y ago
    How often is code submitted on stack overflow copied from github or other sources though?
- remram 5y ago
  StackOverflow is explicitly CC-BY-SA which makes it easy to comply (e.g. link to the answer in a comment, use a compatible license).
  - qayxc 5y ago
    And who checks that the code snippets didn't come or were derived from code licensed under a different license?
Luker88 5y ago
I said this in the other copilot threads too, but don't forget that copyright is not the only protection there is. Lots of countries (USA first) have tons of software patents. Apache and GPL have clauses to protect the project and its users, but that obviously does not extend to copilot generated code. Now go guess where that code comes from and if it is somehow protected.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jsharf 5y ago
Honestly it seems a bit like an overreaction. The author found a single person who is leaving GitHub over it and they're waving it around like "some people" are leaving GitHub.
IlliOnato 5y ago
People mostly concentrate on whether using Copilot might be a real copyright violation. But the danger of being sued is a different question. Consider the following scenario: 1) Company X has its product code stolen. Somebody puts it on GitHub. It's discovered and the code is removed. 2) You work on an open-source project which competes with that product of Company X, you use Copilot, and make it known. 3) Company X looks through your code and find fragments which look vaguely similar to fragments of their code. 4) They sue, claiming that you copied and obfuscated their code. Were you not using Copilot, one line of defense for you would be that you never looked at the stolen code, never accessed it, so no copying took place. With Copilot, this line of defense is not available to you, because Copilot "saw" that code and in principle that could help to produce the fragments in question. (Of course other lines of defense are still available). Whether courts would accept this argument is a different question, but the argument is not obviously invalid, and Company X can cause enough trouble for you...
nimbius 5y ago
for those of you wondering why a litigiously rigorous company like Microsoft is pushing Copilot despite overwhelming evidence of copyright infringement, its not a technical limitation they seek to challenge but the legal limitation of the GPL and open source code in general. What they could not destroy through market dominance, they will use their 143 billion in revenue to simply render moot. Microsoft has the coffers and attorneys to litigate this all the way to the supreme court, and I surmise thats just what they intend to do. a win for Github AI would be a damning indictment against the protection offered by open source licensing. cloud is Microsofts golden calf in 2021 and ensuring it grazes rent-free on your projects..your code...has become a priority.

77 points by NmAmDa 5y ago

spywaregorilla 5y ago

I feel like its pushing for a future where source available becomes equivalent to open source.

NmAmDa 5y ago
I think this equivalence is what supposed to be. At least availability for non-commercial purposes.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
But all the code used IS open source; this does NOT mean anyone is free to use it in e.g. commercial or differently licensed products. I mean there's some licenses out there that do allow for it (I'm not that well versed in OS licenses), but open source code often comes with caveats. GPL for example makes it mandatory for you to make any changes you make to it open source yourself, making any GPL-licensed code suggested by Copilot unusable in a commercial closed-source application.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  > But all the code used IS open source; this does NOT mean anyone is free to use it in e.g. commercial or differently licensed products. That is source available, not open source.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  >But all the code used IS open source All the code used is source-available but not necessarily open source. If you push a repository to GitHub with no license, it's not open source. In 2015, the number of repositories with a license was around 20%: https://github.blog/2015-03-09-open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/2015-03-09-open-source-license-usage-on-...
- kroltan 5y ago
  https://twitter.com/NoraDotCodes/status/1412741339771461635 https://twitter.com/NoraDotCodes/status/1412741339771461635 Seems that Github used any public repository, not just ones with open-source licenses. This could include source-available code or any other kind of "visible, but nonfree" license.
- dataviz1000 5y ago
  Are you sure that is how the GPL-license works? I thought you only have to provide the source if you share the code with someone else. If you are hired to write code and sign a contract that the copyright of the code belongs to the person who hired you, the owner can extend and use the GPL code closed-source. Only if the owner decides to share the code do they have to tack on a GPL compliant license.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    If you distribute the product built with GPL licensed code, then you need to make ths source code available. It's the distribution aspect that's crucial and for example SaaS products do not have to disclose their backend code because a user remotely accesses GPL code through their browser.
35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
Open source means many different things to many different people: that's why we have licenses. And that's why talking about "open source" often elides important details. When author(s) license a project under CC0/public domain, their vision of open source is dramatically different than a project licensed under AGPL3.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  Yes, and what I'm saying is that this feels like its pushing for anything that is source available to become true open source with no limitations, including due to practicality, attribution.
alok-g 5y ago
First off, "open source" does not typically mean free of any kind of restrictions, and that is the entire point of this debate. So "source available" becomes equivalent to "open source" would only mean some open-source license applies by default, whereas under Berne Convention, copyright applies by default. Anyways, I am taking your statement to mean what you perhaps actually meant below. Think about what would happen if this is applied to everything. Anything being available becomes free of restrictions. Then all books published become openly available for anyone to copy or print. Even compiled software becomes free of restrictions, which anyone can copy freely. This is basically demise of copyright laws itself, which would be disasterous. In case I misunderstood your comment, please clarify.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  By open source in this context I mean totally open with no requirements, including attribution. > Think about what would happen if this is applied to everything. Anything being available becomes free of restrictions. Then all books published become openly available for anyone to copy or print. Even compiled software becomes free of restrictions, which anyone can copy freely. This is basically demise of copyright laws itself, which would be disasterous. I think standards for code should be different from art. They're different concepts. Art you want to protect a specific expression. Code you want to protect the output of an expression. Everyone's talking about how this tool spits out code verbatim, but who cares? What if my tool spits out your python2 code in python3 code? What if it also just fluffs it a little to read differently but perform similarly. It doesn't need to do this explicitly either, it can just guarantee that no outputted code matches an original work exactly but get to the same place. I can make the code substantially different, while keeping the output exactly the same. But we don't get anywhere but generating continuously obtuse implementations of the same thing for stylistic differences. Functionality isn't copyrightable for good reason. edit: and the example of rewriting the code in a different language in a different style probably still is technically copyright violation, but it'll be extremely difficult to win that trial in case, and thus is a stupid rule.
  - alok-g 5y ago
    I would like to brainstorm more on this. Perhaps offline would make more sense. I agree that for code, the function is more important than form. The "ideas" behind the function are protected by patents, not copyrights as you recognize already. If there are no inventive steps involved, then of course, patents do not come into picture and the function sees no protection, only the expression (form) part does. I do think there is creative expression involved in writing code as well, however, I need to understand your point better. Code is just being written in a programming language, whereas a prose/poem is written in a natural language. Both can involve creative expression. I would like to hear more about how exactly you are distinguishing the two which may hold in form of say a revised law. What would a revision to the law look like which enables the code to be always free of creative expression (that copyright protects) but still leave books, paintings, etc., still being open to copyrights protection. If the argument is only that the writer of the code is not interested in the form, only the function, they are free to put their code in the public domain, not making use of the copyright protection. And as far as protecting function is concerned, they may make use of patents where applicable. In most other respects (am ignoring other IP laws), the "openness" you ask for is already there.

andybak 5y ago

Am I the only person who feels that it's copyright that's the issue rather than machine learning training sets? Consider a new additional feature added on to Copilot - a language aware rewriting tool that transforms the initial generated code into a new form with equivalent functionality. It would be nearly impossible to trace the original code or make a copyright claim. However - you could use this same trick directly on copyrighted code. Now things are even murkier... But I would argue that this is essentially what our brains are doing. I've read code, got the gist of it and written my own version. Technically it's not a clean-room reimplementation but an average coder wouldn't realistically expect to get sued for copyright for doing this. Maybe they should but if you're an open source advocate and you've reached this position then there's something very weird going on. I always thought the idea of open source was to use copyright against itself because we believed in openness. Not embracing it and just throwing out one small aspect of it.

king_magic 5y ago
but an average coder wouldn't realistically expect to get sued for copyright for doing this Yeah, but they absolutely could if they copied code verbatim, which is what Copilot is often doing.
- the8472 5y ago
  For very small values of often. https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitation#results https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitatio...
  - bluefirebrand 5y ago
    Which means that if every one of us was using it, many of us would be using copyrighted code by the end of a single day.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    You're citing a study done by Github on their own product, on something that has generated lots of backlash over the last week. I would take it seriously if it was an independant study, but right now it's hard to believe it.

nathan_phoenix 5y ago

I think that it's now in a gray area and that we'll see if it's legal or not in the upcoming years. Because let's be honest, the current legal systems weren't designed for ML and AI...

cmpb 5y ago
And yet they'll get shoehorned into our legal systems regardless. It seems like legal systems need a more adequate revising process, something to help refactor after all the shit we've shoved in over the decades
- voakbasda 5y ago
  It is called Revolution. No amount of reform will unseat the reigning oligarchy. The system is too corrupt to be reformed from within. Fairly certain these statements hold true for every country.
- nathan_phoenix 5y ago
  Seems more and more like the current legal systems are like huge legacy projects. They desperately need a redo, but so much depends on them that one is afraid of touching them.

binarymax 5y ago

The hilarious thing about this, and no offense to anyone, is that a lot of public code on github is terrible (even mine!). Garbage in, garbage out, as they say.

Hamuko 5y ago

https://archive.ph/gBPLC https://archive.ph/gBPLC

kevincox 5y ago

> stole it from a code repository protected by a license. This is a common misconception. The license doesn't protect the code. In fact license are about removing protection (in certain situations). It is copyright which protects the code.

alok-g 5y ago
That is just picking on semantics. License is indeed granting some rights that would not have been under copyrights, however, the license is placing some limitations still, which are being placed to protect "something" -- This something may be freedom (free as a bird) of FOSS software or whatever. It's understood that this protection still rests on the copyright laws.
- kevincox 5y ago
  That is a way you could look at it, but to me it just seems to be setting people up to be confused. The license isn't really limiting you at all. It is just specifying conditions in which it grants some rights. For example the GPL isn't limiting your use of the code in closed-source software. It is simply granting your rights to use the code only if you release your code under the GPL. However I think that you are right when phrased like this. If you assume that you use the code, then the license does effectively apply restrictions. But again, I wouldn't want to presuppose that someone is using the code. It puts the decision in the wrong place. But still this is quite different from the original framing. In the context of the article the problem isn't that the code was protected by a license, the problem was that the code is protected by copyright. This problem could be worked around if you complied with the license such it gave you permission, however the point remains, if you revoke all of the licenses the original problem remains.
  - alok-g 5y ago
    Yes, you are right from semantic standpoint. I already fully agree. >> This problem could be worked around if you complied with the license such it gave you permission, however the point remains, if you revoke all of the licenses the original problem remains. Absolutely right. If the code used for training data did not come with a license (i.e., it retains full copyright by default), the problem isn't solved. It's rather bigger as you have noted. However, the OP is still making the right point. If the conditions/limitations which came along with the license are not honored, that becomes a copyright violation, and hence, the developers need to be careful or they might get sued. >> GitHub’s AI Copilot Might Get You Sued If You Use It Github Copilot has placed the responsibility on the developer, so it's important that the developers understand all this.

emveeoh 5y ago

I do believe there is a legal liability here on the person using the tool, but not on GitHub. GitHub would only need to remove the 'auto-insertion' of the code to get around any liability. Then, it would be on YOU if you chose to copy-paste their provided suggestions into your own code.

mbesto 5y ago

I keep seeing developers weigh in on their thoughts about copyright/legal issues but no IP legal experts. Why are people taking any of this without reviewing it with, ya know, lawyers? (for the record, I loathe lawyers like the rest of you, but they have a purpose here) Just like when congressmen try to talk about tech and developers bemoan "you have no idea what you're talking about, stop trying", can developers just take a back seat before becoming a bunch of keyboard warriors here? Telling people they "might get sued" is boring and unhelpful. If you think there is a legal implication - then consult a lawyer. Just like a lawyer would consult their web developer if CSS was broken on their website. That being said - I think it's entirely okay for developers to say "I did not explicitly choose to let Copilot use my data as a training set and I'm taking my code off GitHub until that is done". PS - I want grellas back :(

onli 5y ago
Julia Reda did weigh in: https://juliareda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/ https://juliareda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringin...
- louthy 5y ago
  That seems to entirely ignore that Copilot has 'generated' GPL protected code verbatim, even down to the comments. There appears to be exact copies of certain code segments within their model, and that is being exactly copied out. Doesn't that fall under copyright protection?
  - onli 5y ago
    Where I live: It does fall under it, if the code is sufficient complex enough (e.g. there is evident originality) to be protected under copyright in the first place.
  - jolux 5y ago
    She does say she doesn’t think most snippets meet the originality criteria.

qayxc 5y ago

The exaggerations won't stop now, will they? First of all, it's not as if CoPilot spits out verbatim replica of training data on every other prompt. Secondly, the consequences of accidentally copying code by means of using this tool are pretty minor. The author acts as if copypasta from StackOverflow, RosettaCode and similar sites is NOT a daily occurrence (and can't even be checked in the case of closed source software). Fake gurus like Siraj Raval [0] can manage to literally steal - as in copying other people's work and claiming it as their own - for years without consequences and face ZERO legal backlash even after being exposed. Some of his repos had hundreds or even thousands of stars and forks on GitHub, while the original authors he copied from got no attention or credit at all. If this is what people can get away with who do this knowingly and deliberately and with entire projects, then I really have to wonder what the fuss is about when an ML model occasionally spits out a few lines of code snippets verbatim from its training set. [0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A

Hamuko 5y ago
All stuff on Stack Overflow has a CC BY-SA license though, so the license burden is quite minor. Meanwhile most stuff on GitHub is (most likely still) unlicensed, meaning that it cannot be used in any way.
- pantsforbirds 5y ago
  How often is code submitted on stack overflow copied from github or other sources though?
remram 5y ago
StackOverflow is explicitly CC-BY-SA which makes it easy to comply (e.g. link to the answer in a comment, use a compatible license).
- qayxc 5y ago
  And who checks that the code snippets didn't come or were derived from code licensed under a different license?

Luker88 5y ago

I said this in the other copilot threads too, but don't forget that copyright is not the only protection there is. Lots of countries (USA first) have tons of software patents. Apache and GPL have clauses to protect the project and its users, but that obviously does not extend to copilot generated code. Now go guess where that code comes from and if it is somehow protected.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jsharf 5y ago

Honestly it seems a bit like an overreaction. The author found a single person who is leaving GitHub over it and they're waving it around like "some people" are leaving GitHub.

IlliOnato 5y ago

People mostly concentrate on whether using Copilot might be a real copyright violation. But the danger of being sued is a different question. Consider the following scenario: 1) Company X has its product code stolen. Somebody puts it on GitHub. It's discovered and the code is removed. 2) You work on an open-source project which competes with that product of Company X, you use Copilot, and make it known. 3) Company X looks through your code and find fragments which look vaguely similar to fragments of their code. 4) They sue, claiming that you copied and obfuscated their code. Were you not using Copilot, one line of defense for you would be that you never looked at the stolen code, never accessed it, so no copying took place. With Copilot, this line of defense is not available to you, because Copilot "saw" that code and in principle that could help to produce the fragments in question. (Of course other lines of defense are still available). Whether courts would accept this argument is a different question, but the argument is not obviously invalid, and Company X can cause enough trouble for you...

nimbius 5y ago

for those of you wondering why a litigiously rigorous company like Microsoft is pushing Copilot despite overwhelming evidence of copyright infringement, its not a technical limitation they seek to challenge but the legal limitation of the GPL and open source code in general. What they could not destroy through market dominance, they will use their 143 billion in revenue to simply render moot. Microsoft has the coffers and attorneys to litigate this all the way to the supreme court, and I surmise thats just what they intend to do. a win for Github AI would be a damning indictment against the protection offered by open source licensing. cloud is Microsofts golden calf in 2021 and ensuring it grazes rent-free on your projects..your code...has become a priority.