5 ms·

I as an open source author absolutely do not want Microsoft to get richer from using my code, code that I contributed or published for the benefits of other dev

by toxik 5y ago

I as an open source author absolutely do not want Microsoft to get richer from using my code, code that I contributed or published for the benefits of other developers. They took my work, removed my name and trained an advanced pattern matching technique to try to make code like mine and then sell it. It’s so obviously ethically questionable it’s insane. Developers are absolutely pissed about this, and rightfully so.

nojito 5y ago
Then you should have never released it. Fairly straight forward solution to your very unique problem.
- toxik 5y ago
  The license for my software was written in a world where AI was not being used to replace me with my own code. Whatever license was chosen, was chosen to deal with the questions and issues known at the time. It’s such a BS argument to say “your license didn’t anticipate the future, it’s your fault.” No, that’s not how law works. Furthermore, law is not ethics. I said it’s ethically questionable because that’s what matters. Not if a court will find Microsoft guilty of some kind of overreach. Anybody with even passing knowledge of law knows this, so please, stuff it somewhere.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    > It’s such a BS argument to say “your license didn’t anticipate the future, it’s your fault.” No, that’s not how law works. It literally is though. You don't get to change your mind on an agreement because something happened that you didn't expect.
necovek 5y ago
Not even copyleft licenses prohibit somebody from earning money from what you released, and that includes Microsoft. The idea behind free software is that it benefits all users equally, even if other developers get the biggest direct benefit. The best question to ask yourself is if you would be annoyed as much if a company like Black Duck did a similar training or analysis with their OpenHub (openhub.net)? I think one could even make a case for training an AI in this manner from the leaked Windows code: copyright law treats these generally as "fair use", though how you gained the copy of the code might still be illegal. IANAL though :)
- drran 5y ago
  You need to comply with license first before you can use it to defense your position. Copilot doesn't comply with opensource licenses, so authors of Copilot lost the right to use opensource licensed code permanently, until they settle the case with authors of the code.
- wffurr 5y ago
  CC-BY-NC explicitly prohibits commercial usage. It’s also common to see GPL license for non-commercial usage and paid licenses for commercial usage.
  - necovek 5y ago
    Dual licensing with a copyleft license is common if you want to offer an ability for someone to develop a closed-source project: they can perfectly develop a GPL-licensed commercial project without paying anything. If CC-BY-NC prohibits commercial use, it is not an open source or free software license (which have compatible definitions, but differ in motivations). AFAIK, Creative Commons was set to create a set of licenses in the spirit of open source for creative works, and I wouldn't expect them to be open source at all.
nmfisher 5y ago
Did you license your code under terms that allowed them to do so?
- tyingq 5y ago
  Most licenses would require attribution and some notion of the license(s) of the code behind the suggestion.
- toxik 5y ago
  Screwing over the little guy because he didn’t spend enough time contemplating possible legal troubles with his OS software seems, again, ethically dubious at best.
nanagojo 5y ago
> I as an open source author absolutely do not want Microsoft to get richer from using my code You are likely using the wrong license then.
- drran 5y ago
  Copilot doesn't comply with all open source licenses. Which one we should use then to protect our rights?
twic 5y ago
It doesn't matter what you want. You released your code under an open source license. What matters now is what the license says.
- b3morales 5y ago
  Well, the license probably requires attribution. Can you point to Copilot fulfilling that requirement?
iaml 5y ago
I wonder if they could generate the correct license to code copilot produces, and maybe even infer the preferred one from repo and generate code that is restricted to that?

by toxik 5y ago

nojito 5y ago

Then you should have never released it. Fairly straight forward solution to your very unique problem.

toxik 5y ago
The license for my software was written in a world where AI was not being used to replace me with my own code. Whatever license was chosen, was chosen to deal with the questions and issues known at the time. It’s such a BS argument to say “your license didn’t anticipate the future, it’s your fault.” No, that’s not how law works. Furthermore, law is not ethics. I said it’s ethically questionable because that’s what matters. Not if a court will find Microsoft guilty of some kind of overreach. Anybody with even passing knowledge of law knows this, so please, stuff it somewhere.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  > It’s such a BS argument to say “your license didn’t anticipate the future, it’s your fault.” No, that’s not how law works. It literally is though. You don't get to change your mind on an agreement because something happened that you didn't expect.

necovek 5y ago

Not even copyleft licenses prohibit somebody from earning money from what you released, and that includes Microsoft. The idea behind free software is that it benefits all users equally, even if other developers get the biggest direct benefit. The best question to ask yourself is if you would be annoyed as much if a company like Black Duck did a similar training or analysis with their OpenHub (openhub.net)? I think one could even make a case for training an AI in this manner from the leaked Windows code: copyright law treats these generally as "fair use", though how you gained the copy of the code might still be illegal. IANAL though :)

drran 5y ago
You need to comply with license first before you can use it to defense your position. Copilot doesn't comply with opensource licenses, so authors of Copilot lost the right to use opensource licensed code permanently, until they settle the case with authors of the code.
wffurr 5y ago
CC-BY-NC explicitly prohibits commercial usage. It’s also common to see GPL license for non-commercial usage and paid licenses for commercial usage.
- necovek 5y ago
  Dual licensing with a copyleft license is common if you want to offer an ability for someone to develop a closed-source project: they can perfectly develop a GPL-licensed commercial project without paying anything. If CC-BY-NC prohibits commercial use, it is not an open source or free software license (which have compatible definitions, but differ in motivations). AFAIK, Creative Commons was set to create a set of licenses in the spirit of open source for creative works, and I wouldn't expect them to be open source at all.

nmfisher 5y ago

Did you license your code under terms that allowed them to do so?

tyingq 5y ago
Most licenses would require attribution and some notion of the license(s) of the code behind the suggestion.
toxik 5y ago
Screwing over the little guy because he didn’t spend enough time contemplating possible legal troubles with his OS software seems, again, ethically dubious at best.

nanagojo 5y ago

> I as an open source author absolutely do not want Microsoft to get richer from using my code You are likely using the wrong license then.

drran 5y ago
Copilot doesn't comply with all open source licenses. Which one we should use then to protect our rights?

twic 5y ago

It doesn't matter what you want. You released your code under an open source license. What matters now is what the license says.

b3morales 5y ago
Well, the license probably requires attribution. Can you point to Copilot fulfilling that requirement?

iaml 5y ago

I wonder if they could generate the correct license to code copilot produces, and maybe even infer the preferred one from repo and generate code that is restricted to that?