3 ms·
You don’t want to pay for it because you like free stuff. So does everyone. But that doesn’t pay the bills. You don’t need backcraft some moral argument. It’s
by jakear 4y ago
You don’t want to pay for it because you like free stuff. So does everyone. But that doesn’t pay the bills.
You don’t need backcraft some moral argument. It’s trivial to see that a large amount of creativity went into developing the system, it’s not just a repackaging of public domain works.
- TAForObvReasons 4y agoThe whole controversy was that it was a "repackaging of [licensed] works": https://twitter.com/stefankarpinski/status/1410971061181681674 https://twitter.com/stefankarpinski/status/14109710611816816...
- xigoi 4y agoCopilot's model is a derivative work of GPL-licensed code, but its source is not available anywhere, which violates the GPL.
- jakear 4y agoComputers don’t violate licenses, people do. If you’re writing MIT code and copilot tells you to include Quake’s square root algorithm and you do so, that’s on you. If Google tells you to include Quake’s square root algorithm and you do so, it’s on you. If stack overflow tells you to do so and you do, that’s on you. In all of those cases it doesn’t matter whether the platform’s software is open source, why should it for copilot? It’s the poorest of craftsmen who blames their tools. Rise above. Also, note that simply accessing an online service does not constitute a distribution of software, and thus does not fall under GPL's domain. And "derivative" appears nowhere in the GPL.