3 ms·
You are right: > Otherwise, copyright conflicts would constantly arise when two authors use the same trivial statement independently of each other, such as “Bu
by onli 5y ago
You are right:
> Otherwise, copyright conflicts would constantly arise when two authors use the same trivial statement independently of each other, such as “Bucks beats Hawks and advance to the NBA finals”, or “i = i+1”. The short code snippets that Copilot reproduces from training data are unlikely to reach the threshold of originality. Precisely because copyright only protects original excerpts, press publishers in the EU have successfully lobbied for their own ancillary copyright that does not require originality as a precondition for protection.
- louthy 5y agoNobody is complaining about `i = i + 1`, it's examples like this [1], an entire function, including comments written by the original author, protected under GPL: [1] https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309 https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309
- onli 5y agoThere is still the question of whether such a small part of a bigger work is enough to be protected, but regardless. I think the article was written before that tweet and does not assume that 1:1 copies of longer code parts happen. As I wrote already to you, there is that whole faction of "even using GPL code for learning is wrong", and to my reading Redas article mainly addresses that. And it has the assumption that the verbatim copies will be very small.