Did you see https://twitter.com/NoraDotCodes/status/1412741339771461635 https://twitter.com/NoraDotCodes/status/1412741339771461635, discussed at https://news.y

Did you see https://twitter.com/NoraDotCodes/status/1412741339771461635 https://twitter.com/NoraDotCodes/status/1412741339771461635, discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27769440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27769440 ? > it's official, obeying copyright is only for the plebs and proles, rich people and big companies can do whatever they want > Wow. It's amazing that nobody has brought up the point that the result of ML is a derivative work from the input dataset. If the dataset has a restrictive license, like the GPL, it is a clear cut case of violating the terms of the GPL because it is not being released in the open There are other reactions of course, I'm handpicking here, as those are the reactions I was referencing above. > my day-to-day professional software engineering life needs to know where the code comes from and what its license is. I understand, I agree with it. But that doesn't mean that code produced by an AI that did learn from GPL code has to be licensed under GPL. Verbatim copies of sufficient high originality, so that copyright applies: Sure. And that's where there is some risk of Copilot going wrong. But that's not the primary output of Copilot nor its goal.