4 ms·

There's a difference between building a product using open source and not contributing back, and copying licensed code into your own codebase. One is rude and t

There's a difference between building a product using open source and not contributing back, and copying licensed code into your own codebase. One is rude and the other is straight up illegal.

onion2k 5y ago
The code doesn't exist in Copilot. The instructions for how to recreate the code does. On a very pedantic level those are not the same, but it probably is enough to argue that the product is 100% legal. It is still quite rude to do that though.
- dTal 5y ago
  So a .zip file of copyrighted code loses its license?
- dmurray 5y ago
  I don't think there's any water in that argument at a fundamental level. By that logic you could encode copyrighted information in any reversible format and it would be OK. If I copy the code line by line with my eyes and keyboard, then the code briefly doesn't exist, but the instructions to recreate it do. Copying it is then a two-phase process: first I read the code, then I type it in. It is clear that I'm allowed to look at the code, so it's the action of typing it in that violates copyright. In the same way, distributing Copilot doesn't necessarily break copyright, but using it may.
- hvis 5y ago
  Did "instructions" recreate this? https://twitter.com/stefankarpinski/status/1410971061181681674 https://twitter.com/stefankarpinski/status/14109710611816816...
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    Yes. Models are much much smaller than compressed training sets, making it very clear that they are doing more than just compressing the entire training set.
- IX-103 5y ago
  There's an argument that the model is a derivative work. In that case the original copyright still applies.
- xdennis 5y ago
  I don't think people should look at this based on current law, but what is right. Copyright was established (much) after the printing press made copying so easy. We now need protection against machine learning (learnright?) because the only way to not work for Microsoft for free now is to not release your source code... so not open source. Remember when people said that Microsoft changed its mind on open source?

There's a difference between building a product using open source and not contributing back, and copying licensed code into your own codebase. One is rude and the other is straight up illegal.

onion2k 5y ago

The code doesn't exist in Copilot. The instructions for how to recreate the code does. On a very pedantic level those are not the same, but it probably is enough to argue that the product is 100% legal. It is still quite rude to do that though.

dTal 5y ago
So a .zip file of copyrighted code loses its license?
dmurray 5y ago
I don't think there's any water in that argument at a fundamental level. By that logic you could encode copyrighted information in any reversible format and it would be OK. If I copy the code line by line with my eyes and keyboard, then the code briefly doesn't exist, but the instructions to recreate it do. Copying it is then a two-phase process: first I read the code, then I type it in. It is clear that I'm allowed to look at the code, so it's the action of typing it in that violates copyright. In the same way, distributing Copilot doesn't necessarily break copyright, but using it may.
hvis 5y ago
Did "instructions" recreate this? https://twitter.com/stefankarpinski/status/1410971061181681674 https://twitter.com/stefankarpinski/status/14109710611816816...
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Yes. Models are much much smaller than compressed training sets, making it very clear that they are doing more than just compressing the entire training set.
IX-103 5y ago
There's an argument that the model is a derivative work. In that case the original copyright still applies.
xdennis 5y ago
I don't think people should look at this based on current law, but what is right. Copyright was established (much) after the printing press made copying so easy. We now need protection against machine learning (learnright?) because the only way to not work for Microsoft for free now is to not release your source code... so not open source. Remember when people said that Microsoft changed its mind on open source?