7 ms·

I assume that Copilot uses open source projects on GitHub to “learn” what to suggest. Some of these projects might be under, say, GPL v3. A developer uses Copil

by lsh123 4y ago

I assume that Copilot uses open source projects on GitHub to “learn” what to suggest. Some of these projects might be under, say, GPL v3. A developer uses Copilot for a commercial project and Copilot insert a complete function from a GPL v3 code into this project. Someone notices this and sues the commercial project for breaking GPL v3. Will GitHub pickup the tab?

baby 4y ago
This is why we can't have nice things
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
LrnByTeach 4y ago
a person bought a hammer/knife from a shop and used it to hurt another person. When the victim sues the attacker, can the manufacturer of hammer/knife pick up the tab?
- bioinformatics 4y ago
  Isn’t that what Biden wants to do with gun makers?
- culi 4y ago
  That's... not quite the same thing. More like, everybody has their own sourdough starter. Some people sell theirs, some people give it out for free. Someone goes from house to house to make a super-starter by collecting pieces from each house. Then someone uses that starter to sell a patented bread Ok it's not a great analogy either. Maybe we need to stop trying to reduce the complexities of digital so much
- muzani 4y ago
  Not the same. Probably theft laws are more similar. A thief steals a knife and sells it to a knife seller. The knife seller sells you the knife. Under law, stolen property belong to the person it was stolen from, and sales are not valid. The original owner of the knife claims it back from you. But being digital, the knife was just copied and the original owner still has one, but you also have theirs without their permission. So there's much less sympathy for the victim.
- Volundr 4y ago
  Unless the hammer automatically chooses it's target and will (sometimes) hit a human in the head all on it's own unless the owner is paying sufficient attention to check it's target on each swing and validate that it's not a human head.... not really the same thing.
- popcube 4y ago
  we need another AI in example, if someone's AI car automatically random hit people, do not company have some responsibility?
blip54321 4y ago
Damages. This question will come back to damages. If you steal 10 lines of code from me, the damages will be the greater of: - The benefit to you (10 minutes programmer time) - The cost to me ($0) - Statutory damages (probably $200) In other words, it's very unlikely to be worth a lawsuit. The most likely outcome is: - A legal letter is sent - Infringing code is removed - As good bedside manner, some nominal amount of money is transferred, mostly in some gesture designed to make the violated party feel good about themselves (e.g. a nice gift).
- IncRnd 4y ago
  Since people and github are contemplating repeatedly infringing, is there an avenue to increase these damages? This seems like repeated and willful infringement.
  - blip54321 4y ago
    It's not willful by the users of copilot. Damages would be low since it's easy to show that users have no intention of infringing, and in most cases, aren't aware they're infringing. If liability sits somewhere, it's with copilot, github, and Microsoft. A lot of that might come down to bedside manner. Right now, github isn't super-polite to people whose code it used. That's probably a mistake. They'd be a unsympathetic evil megacorp in a jury trial.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- codegladiator 4y ago
  Do you see a scope for troll code GPLers, something along the lines of troll patents ?
  - blagie 4y ago
    No. There's nothing magical about GPL code. Sticking a license on code doesn't suddenly lead to astronomical damages. No one has won billions of dollars on GPL enforcement. It's not how courts work. Contrary to popular belief, courts also won't compel compliance (e.g. releasing my code); if I break your license, the standard recourse is damages, whether that's GPL or All Rights Reserved. Otherwise, I'd make the First Born Child license, whereby by using my code, you give me full ownership of your first born child, your home, your car, and your bank account. I could write a license like that right now, but I couldn't force you to give me your child, car, bank account, and home. If you used my code, you'd have the option to accept the license and give me those things. Or you could reject it, in which case, it's a normal copyright violation; in that case, whatever I wrote in the license is moot, and you pay damages (and stop using my code).
2600 4y ago
Under it's settings, there's an option for GitHub Copilot to "allow or block suggestions matching public code."
dahart 4y ago
> Someone notices this and sues the commercial project for breaking GPL v3. I know what you mean, but silly nit pick since you mentioned “commercial” twice - GPL v3 does not prevent commercial use, it only requires copies to be open source. For someone to notice the project has copied code and not be inside the company, the code would (probably) have to be open source. So, this hypothetical is less likely to happen than your comment makes it sound. A little further off topic, but amusing to me, is that the US government defines “commercial” software to be any software that has a license other than public domain. Free and open source software, such as GPL v3, is still “commercial” because it is licensed to the public https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-2#FAR_2_101 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-2#FAR_2_101 More on-topic now, a small single function accidentally copied from an open source project by automated software might be considered fair use by US copyright law. https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html (Edit) Oh yeah, and I just remembered that GitHub’s Terms already carve a necessary exception to whatever license you use in your project, to allow Github to host & display your code. I assume those terms already include some CoPilot coverage…? If not, and if they aren’t legally covered already (which I bet they are), then they could change the terms to stipulate that hosting code on GitHub bars people from suing over incidental amounts of automated copying. Main point here being that the GPLv3 license on your project is neither the only nor the primary license governing GitHub’s relationship with your code.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- account42 4y ago
  > I know what you mean, but silly nit pick since you mentioned “commercial” twice - GPL v3 does not prevent commercial use, it only requires copies to be open source. For someone to notice the project has copied code and not be inside the company, the code would (probably) have to be open source. So, this hypothetical is less likely to happen than your comment makes it sound. The are plenty of source available or open core projects where use of GPL-ed code would both be visible and incompatible with the licensing. > Oh yeah, and I just remembered that GitHub’s Terms already carve a necessary exception to whatever license you use in your project, to allow Github to host & display your code. I assume those terms already include some CoPilot coverage…? Letting github host and display the code is compatible with open source licenses but is very much different from letting third parties incorporate that code into non-open codebases. > If not, and if they aren’t legally covered already (which I bet they are), then they could change the terms to stipulate that hosting code on GitHub bars people from suing over incidental amounts of automated copying. Main point here being that the GPLv3 license on your project is neither the only nor the primary license governing GitHub’s relationship with your code. GitHub TOS can only possibly give them authorization from those directly uploading code to GitHub. They don't give github any additional license for code that was uploaded by a someone else (for example a mirror bot) becose that someone does not have the rights to give out that license. And even if they write in their TOS that they can do whatever they want it does not mean that they can actually legally do whatever they want - even moreso when retroactively changing those terms.
runeks 4y ago
> A developer uses Copilot for a commercial project and Copilot insert a complete function from a GPL v3 code into this project. Honest question: can a function have a license? Ie. can a function be copyrighted? If an MIT library and a GPL library use the same function with some minor variation and I use the function from the GPL code in my commercial project, have I infringed on someone’s copyright/license? Or would be argument be that the function in question is not copyrightable as almost the same version exists licensed under MIT?
- blagie 4y ago
  Honest answer: - Yes, functions are copyrighted. - Copyrights are not patents, and providence matters. If you and I independently both come up with the same text, we both have a right to use it. If it could be proven in a court of law that by a 10^(-100,000) chance, we both wrote an identical novel, we'd both have copyrights to our work. - Conversely, if you took my creative work, the fact that someone else came up with the same creative work isn't a defence - If the code you borrowed went MIT->GPL->your code, things get very ambiguous. The copyright holder is the original author if the GPL code made no changes. - For just one function, you might be able to get away with a fair use defence. There's a four-prong test, which is pretty fuzzy. You'd do well on some prongs ("the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole") and poorly on others ("the purpose and character of the use"). - For something like copilot inserting it, you do much better, since intent matters too.
- tirpen 4y ago
  > Ie. can a function be copyrighted? def print_harry_potter_book_1(): print("Chapter One") print("The boy who lived") print("Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were") print("proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank") print("you very much. they were the last people you’d expect to be in-") print("volved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn’t") print("hold with such nonsense.") print("Mr. Dursley was the director of a firm called Grunnings, which") print("made drills. He was a big, beefy man with hardly any neck, al-") print("though he did have a very large mustache. Mrs. Dursley was thin") print("and blonde and had nearly twice the usual amount of neck, which") print("came in very useful as she spent so much of her time craning over") print("garden fences, spying on the neighbors. the Dursleys had a small") print("son called Dudley and in their opinion there was no finer boy") print("anywhere.") [...]

by lsh123 4y ago

baby 4y ago

This is why we can't have nice things

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

LrnByTeach 4y ago

a person bought a hammer/knife from a shop and used it to hurt another person. When the victim sues the attacker, can the manufacturer of hammer/knife pick up the tab?

bioinformatics 4y ago
Isn’t that what Biden wants to do with gun makers?
culi 4y ago
That's... not quite the same thing. More like, everybody has their own sourdough starter. Some people sell theirs, some people give it out for free. Someone goes from house to house to make a super-starter by collecting pieces from each house. Then someone uses that starter to sell a patented bread Ok it's not a great analogy either. Maybe we need to stop trying to reduce the complexities of digital so much
muzani 4y ago
Not the same. Probably theft laws are more similar. A thief steals a knife and sells it to a knife seller. The knife seller sells you the knife. Under law, stolen property belong to the person it was stolen from, and sales are not valid. The original owner of the knife claims it back from you. But being digital, the knife was just copied and the original owner still has one, but you also have theirs without their permission. So there's much less sympathy for the victim.
Volundr 4y ago
Unless the hammer automatically chooses it's target and will (sometimes) hit a human in the head all on it's own unless the owner is paying sufficient attention to check it's target on each swing and validate that it's not a human head.... not really the same thing.
popcube 4y ago
we need another AI in example, if someone's AI car automatically random hit people, do not company have some responsibility?

blip54321 4y ago

Damages. This question will come back to damages. If you steal 10 lines of code from me, the damages will be the greater of: - The benefit to you (10 minutes programmer time) - The cost to me ($0) - Statutory damages (probably $200) In other words, it's very unlikely to be worth a lawsuit. The most likely outcome is: - A legal letter is sent - Infringing code is removed - As good bedside manner, some nominal amount of money is transferred, mostly in some gesture designed to make the violated party feel good about themselves (e.g. a nice gift).

IncRnd 4y ago
Since people and github are contemplating repeatedly infringing, is there an avenue to increase these damages? This seems like repeated and willful infringement.
- blip54321 4y ago
  It's not willful by the users of copilot. Damages would be low since it's easy to show that users have no intention of infringing, and in most cases, aren't aware they're infringing. If liability sits somewhere, it's with copilot, github, and Microsoft. A lot of that might come down to bedside manner. Right now, github isn't super-polite to people whose code it used. That's probably a mistake. They'd be a unsympathetic evil megacorp in a jury trial.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
codegladiator 4y ago
Do you see a scope for troll code GPLers, something along the lines of troll patents ?
- blagie 4y ago
  No. There's nothing magical about GPL code. Sticking a license on code doesn't suddenly lead to astronomical damages. No one has won billions of dollars on GPL enforcement. It's not how courts work. Contrary to popular belief, courts also won't compel compliance (e.g. releasing my code); if I break your license, the standard recourse is damages, whether that's GPL or All Rights Reserved. Otherwise, I'd make the First Born Child license, whereby by using my code, you give me full ownership of your first born child, your home, your car, and your bank account. I could write a license like that right now, but I couldn't force you to give me your child, car, bank account, and home. If you used my code, you'd have the option to accept the license and give me those things. Or you could reject it, in which case, it's a normal copyright violation; in that case, whatever I wrote in the license is moot, and you pay damages (and stop using my code).

2600 4y ago

Under it's settings, there's an option for GitHub Copilot to "allow or block suggestions matching public code."

dahart 4y ago

> Someone notices this and sues the commercial project for breaking GPL v3. I know what you mean, but silly nit pick since you mentioned “commercial” twice - GPL v3 does not prevent commercial use, it only requires copies to be open source. For someone to notice the project has copied code and not be inside the company, the code would (probably) have to be open source. So, this hypothetical is less likely to happen than your comment makes it sound. A little further off topic, but amusing to me, is that the US government defines “commercial” software to be any software that has a license other than public domain. Free and open source software, such as GPL v3, is still “commercial” because it is licensed to the public https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-2#FAR_2_101 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-2#FAR_2_101 More on-topic now, a small single function accidentally copied from an open source project by automated software might be considered fair use by US copyright law. https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html (Edit) Oh yeah, and I just remembered that GitHub’s Terms already carve a necessary exception to whatever license you use in your project, to allow Github to host & display your code. I assume those terms already include some CoPilot coverage…? If not, and if they aren’t legally covered already (which I bet they are), then they could change the terms to stipulate that hosting code on GitHub bars people from suing over incidental amounts of automated copying. Main point here being that the GPLv3 license on your project is neither the only nor the primary license governing GitHub’s relationship with your code.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
account42 4y ago
> I know what you mean, but silly nit pick since you mentioned “commercial” twice - GPL v3 does not prevent commercial use, it only requires copies to be open source. For someone to notice the project has copied code and not be inside the company, the code would (probably) have to be open source. So, this hypothetical is less likely to happen than your comment makes it sound. The are plenty of source available or open core projects where use of GPL-ed code would both be visible and incompatible with the licensing. > Oh yeah, and I just remembered that GitHub’s Terms already carve a necessary exception to whatever license you use in your project, to allow Github to host & display your code. I assume those terms already include some CoPilot coverage…? Letting github host and display the code is compatible with open source licenses but is very much different from letting third parties incorporate that code into non-open codebases. > If not, and if they aren’t legally covered already (which I bet they are), then they could change the terms to stipulate that hosting code on GitHub bars people from suing over incidental amounts of automated copying. Main point here being that the GPLv3 license on your project is neither the only nor the primary license governing GitHub’s relationship with your code. GitHub TOS can only possibly give them authorization from those directly uploading code to GitHub. They don't give github any additional license for code that was uploaded by a someone else (for example a mirror bot) becose that someone does not have the rights to give out that license. And even if they write in their TOS that they can do whatever they want it does not mean that they can actually legally do whatever they want - even moreso when retroactively changing those terms.

runeks 4y ago

> A developer uses Copilot for a commercial project and Copilot insert a complete function from a GPL v3 code into this project. Honest question: can a function have a license? Ie. can a function be copyrighted? If an MIT library and a GPL library use the same function with some minor variation and I use the function from the GPL code in my commercial project, have I infringed on someone’s copyright/license? Or would be argument be that the function in question is not copyrightable as almost the same version exists licensed under MIT?

blagie 4y ago
Honest answer: - Yes, functions are copyrighted. - Copyrights are not patents, and providence matters. If you and I independently both come up with the same text, we both have a right to use it. If it could be proven in a court of law that by a 10^(-100,000) chance, we both wrote an identical novel, we'd both have copyrights to our work. - Conversely, if you took my creative work, the fact that someone else came up with the same creative work isn't a defence - If the code you borrowed went MIT->GPL->your code, things get very ambiguous. The copyright holder is the original author if the GPL code made no changes. - For just one function, you might be able to get away with a fair use defence. There's a four-prong test, which is pretty fuzzy. You'd do well on some prongs ("the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole") and poorly on others ("the purpose and character of the use"). - For something like copilot inserting it, you do much better, since intent matters too.
tirpen 4y ago
> Ie. can a function be copyrighted? def print_harry_potter_book_1(): print("Chapter One") print("The boy who lived") print("Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were") print("proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank") print("you very much. they were the last people you’d expect to be in-") print("volved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn’t") print("hold with such nonsense.") print("Mr. Dursley was the director of a firm called Grunnings, which") print("made drills. He was a big, beefy man with hardly any neck, al-") print("though he did have a very large mustache. Mrs. Dursley was thin") print("and blonde and had nearly twice the usual amount of neck, which") print("came in very useful as she spent so much of her time craning over") print("garden fences, spying on the neighbors. the Dursleys had a small") print("son called Dudley and in their opinion there was no finer boy") print("anywhere.") [...]