6 ms·

What I think is interesting and not talked about in the copilot cases is there is actually two different copyright actions that come from using it. The first i

What I think is interesting and not talked about in the copilot cases is there is actually two different copyright actions that come from using it. The first is if GitHub had a license to distribute the code they have learned on. This is assuming that the code it produces is a derivative, which I don't think would be much of a stretch. For this I think most of the licenses that are used, GPL MIT etc, allow for someone to distribute in such a way. The second is the user of copilot. They would be getting and distributing code where they wouldn't know the original license, but that wouldn't be a viable defense of infringement. To actually comply with most licenses they would have to follow the requirements. In both cases I don't know if a fair use would really apply. Maybe GitHub could stretch the research aspect, but if you just use the code in your product there is no fair use.

wlesieutre 5y ago
> This is assuming that the code it produces is a derivative, which I don't think would be much of a stretch I don't think that's easily settled. Is the code I write a derivative work of all prior code that I've learned from? The difference (IMO) is that Copilot has a much more precise memory than I do; I couldn't recall the exact text of a code example that I've encountered repeatedly even if I wanted to.
- ric2b 5y ago
  > I couldn't recall the exact text of a code example that I've encountered repeatedly even if I wanted to. If you could it would be copyright infringement anyway.
orwin 5y ago
easy solution: license all the code you write with copilot under AGPL or GPLv3, and you're good.
- cassonmars 5y ago
  Not quite, there are far more aggressive licenses on repositories on GitHub, such as SSPL, which in theory by providing the SSPL licensed code, Co-Pilot should be open sourced under the same license to comply.
- martindevans 5y ago
  Not at all, you'd still be violating all the non-gpl licenses. Just because GPL is more restrictive doesn't mean it somehow supercedes all other licenses!
- Hamuko 5y ago
  Except you're not allowed to relicense proprietary code you found on GitHub under GPL.

wlesieutre 5y ago

> This is assuming that the code it produces is a derivative, which I don't think would be much of a stretch I don't think that's easily settled. Is the code I write a derivative work of all prior code that I've learned from? The difference (IMO) is that Copilot has a much more precise memory than I do; I couldn't recall the exact text of a code example that I've encountered repeatedly even if I wanted to.

ric2b 5y ago
> I couldn't recall the exact text of a code example that I've encountered repeatedly even if I wanted to. If you could it would be copyright infringement anyway.

orwin 5y ago

easy solution: license all the code you write with copilot under AGPL or GPLv3, and you're good.

cassonmars 5y ago
Not quite, there are far more aggressive licenses on repositories on GitHub, such as SSPL, which in theory by providing the SSPL licensed code, Co-Pilot should be open sourced under the same license to comply.
martindevans 5y ago
Not at all, you'd still be violating all the non-gpl licenses. Just because GPL is more restrictive doesn't mean it somehow supercedes all other licenses!
Hamuko 5y ago
Except you're not allowed to relicense proprietary code you found on GitHub under GPL.