4 ms·

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.

I think this equivalence is what supposed to be. At least availability for non-commercial purposes.

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.