4 ms·
I find this line of argumentation unconvincing, given that open source provides the source for models to learn while closed source does not and therefore there
by cgio 5y ago
I find this line of argumentation unconvincing, given that open source provides the source for models to learn while closed source does not and therefore there will not be derivative works of closed source at least from a copilot use case point of view.
Nevertheless, there was a link a couple weeks ago for a NN that replicated GTA. I wonder if that is more along the lines of what the author wanted to argue? I.e. if I can have a NN learn and replicate windows, would MS be ok with it?
- mjg59 5y agoThe majority of public repositories on Github aren't "open source" - there's no associated license that grants you any right to use or modify the code. Copilot is trained on them regardless.
- NmAmDa 5y agoThey rely on the fact that you granted them this right by agreeing to their ToS which allows that use. I doubt any court would consider this illegal.
- mjg59 5y agoI didn't say otherwise? The comment I replied to said: > there will not be derivative works of closed source at least from a copilot use case point of view. which is inaccurate, since many public repositories on Github aren't open source and ended up in Copilot's training corpus anyway.
- b3morales 5y agoThis is quite an ambitious claim. Certainly the GitHub TOS grants them some common-sense ability to copy the code you upload so that they can usefully host it. Can you point to the portion that allows them to use it for Copilot? Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Section D4: > This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service...