5 ms·

If the code ends up being non-IP infringing on the code used to train it, that would be a big win for open source / free software. Now you can just grab any le

by zaarn 5y ago

If the code ends up being non-IP infringing on the code used to train it, that would be a big win for open source / free software. Now you can just grab any leaked code of a closed source program, feed it into your AI and get back code you can license under the GPL and nobody can do anything about it. An easy application I can think of is ZFS; simply feed the AI all CDDL licensed code, then ask it to reproduce ZFS. Probably will have some bugs but it would be licensable under GPL if the AI is considered a whiteroom.

worldsayshi 5y ago
If you hire a programmer that has worked on said closed source and ask them to recreate that code in your GPL licensed program - at what point will that be considered infring on the original? Can you relicense code of you feed it through a programmer?
- anonunivgrad 5y ago
  That would be strong evidence in court of copyright infringement and possibly trade secret theft.
- zaarn 5y ago
  A programmer is a living breathing human, a legal entity that can hold copyright and is capable of violating copyright. An AI cannot hold copyright however and isn't capable of violating copyright (legal entities are, which an AI is not).
kaba0 5y ago
There should be no reason for CDDL to not be includable under GPL license. Canonical does include it for example.
- zaarn 5y ago
  This would eliminate any ambiguity, ZFS would simply be GPL now.
  - trasz 5y ago
    If you replaced CDDL with GPL you’d lose patent protection. Good luck with Oracle lawyers.
    - zaarn 5y ago
      Most of the relevant ZFS patents already expired, I don't think there is anything for the Oracle lawyers. Plus i live in a country where Software patents aren't recognized, so double good luck to Oracle.
542458 5y ago
I think you’re missing that the law considers intent. If the devs of copilot were not trying to set up infringement, then their algorithm’s output is likely not considered infringement [1]. However, if you set out to “launder” copyrighted material then the law will take that into consideration and likely find that you violated copyright. This intent can be demonstrated in court either via your statements, or your actions (such as constructing a meaninglessly tiny training set). [1]: https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-2/copyright-for-literate-robots/ https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-2/copyright...
- zaarn 5y ago
  I don't think that is so easy, a tiny training set would obviously defeat the point but the other part is that the AI can't commit copyright infringement, and I don't have to ask it to produce anything. I merely fed it copyrighted code and released it to other developers without documenting that fact. Possibly open source the entire bot, as no part of the AI would be under the restrictions of the training set.
  - 542458 5y ago
    Again, the law isn’t enforced by robots and is able to adapt such that “clever legal hacks” don’t typically work. Us programming nerds tend to think in terms of rigid, unambiguous rules that treat inputs as black boxes, but the law does not work like this.
    - zaarn 5y ago
      I'm well aware but I don't think this is an issue here.
      - nl 5y ago
        It's exactly the issue. If the AI could be shown to have copied the code it would likely to be found to be infringement. If it was found to have generated new unique code, and merely leant how to program from the code it was trained on it likely wouldn't. In either case, this is different to a clean-room implementation (which I think is what you said by "white room"). Clean-room implementations are supposed to protect against trade secret infringement, and are mostly used when building interop with hardware (where compatibility has special carve-outs). If a person or AI had seen copyright code used in the project it would never be considered clean room. But CDDL code is fine for a person or AI to learn from when building a new, incompatible implementation that doesn't share any code.
trasz 5y ago
It’s called a transpiler; you don’t need AI for this, but it’s obviously still licensed same as original - because it is the original, only translated.
- zaarn 5y ago
  I'm not talking about a transpiler, I'm talking about feeding massive amounts of non-GPL code into an AI and then ask it to produce new code based on that. A transpiler would simply take a single codebase and translate it into a new format, the obvious difference being that such a tool has an obvious and introspectable transformation function.
  - trasz 5y ago
    If the resulting code works the same way, it’s still a transpiler. If the resulting code works in a different way… then I have to ask what exactly does it do and how’s that supposed to be useful.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
On some level yes. This is basically shifting closed repos to a trade secret status.

by zaarn 5y ago

worldsayshi 5y ago

If you hire a programmer that has worked on said closed source and ask them to recreate that code in your GPL licensed program - at what point will that be considered infring on the original? Can you relicense code of you feed it through a programmer?

anonunivgrad 5y ago
That would be strong evidence in court of copyright infringement and possibly trade secret theft.
zaarn 5y ago
A programmer is a living breathing human, a legal entity that can hold copyright and is capable of violating copyright. An AI cannot hold copyright however and isn't capable of violating copyright (legal entities are, which an AI is not).

kaba0 5y ago

There should be no reason for CDDL to not be includable under GPL license. Canonical does include it for example.

zaarn 5y ago
This would eliminate any ambiguity, ZFS would simply be GPL now.
- trasz 5y ago
  If you replaced CDDL with GPL you’d lose patent protection. Good luck with Oracle lawyers.
  - zaarn 5y ago
    Most of the relevant ZFS patents already expired, I don't think there is anything for the Oracle lawyers. Plus i live in a country where Software patents aren't recognized, so double good luck to Oracle.

542458 5y ago

I think you’re missing that the law considers intent. If the devs of copilot were not trying to set up infringement, then their algorithm’s output is likely not considered infringement [1]. However, if you set out to “launder” copyrighted material then the law will take that into consideration and likely find that you violated copyright. This intent can be demonstrated in court either via your statements, or your actions (such as constructing a meaninglessly tiny training set). [1]: https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-2/copyright-for-literate-robots/ https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-2/copyright...

zaarn 5y ago
I don't think that is so easy, a tiny training set would obviously defeat the point but the other part is that the AI can't commit copyright infringement, and I don't have to ask it to produce anything. I merely fed it copyrighted code and released it to other developers without documenting that fact. Possibly open source the entire bot, as no part of the AI would be under the restrictions of the training set.
- 542458 5y ago
  Again, the law isn’t enforced by robots and is able to adapt such that “clever legal hacks” don’t typically work. Us programming nerds tend to think in terms of rigid, unambiguous rules that treat inputs as black boxes, but the law does not work like this.
  - zaarn 5y ago
    I'm well aware but I don't think this is an issue here.
    - nl 5y ago
      It's exactly the issue. If the AI could be shown to have copied the code it would likely to be found to be infringement. If it was found to have generated new unique code, and merely leant how to program from the code it was trained on it likely wouldn't. In either case, this is different to a clean-room implementation (which I think is what you said by "white room"). Clean-room implementations are supposed to protect against trade secret infringement, and are mostly used when building interop with hardware (where compatibility has special carve-outs). If a person or AI had seen copyright code used in the project it would never be considered clean room. But CDDL code is fine for a person or AI to learn from when building a new, incompatible implementation that doesn't share any code.

trasz 5y ago

It’s called a transpiler; you don’t need AI for this, but it’s obviously still licensed same as original - because it is the original, only translated.

zaarn 5y ago
I'm not talking about a transpiler, I'm talking about feeding massive amounts of non-GPL code into an AI and then ask it to produce new code based on that. A transpiler would simply take a single codebase and translate it into a new format, the obvious difference being that such a tool has an obvious and introspectable transformation function.
- trasz 5y ago
  If the resulting code works the same way, it’s still a transpiler. If the resulting code works in a different way… then I have to ask what exactly does it do and how’s that supposed to be useful.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

On some level yes. This is basically shifting closed repos to a trade secret status.