4 ms·

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 limit

by 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.

by alok-g 5y ago

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.