4 ms·

Does that prove it ignores licenses or does that imply the source engine exists verbatim (minus licenses) multiple times on Github?

meheleventyone 4y ago
If it's minus a license then it should be assumed that rights are retained (in the same way you can't just take ownership of an image you find on the internet) so if it were filtering it shouldn't take code from repo's without explicit and favorable licenses. If it is taking code only from repo's with permissive licenses (e.g. MIT) then why aren't they following the attribution requirements? I don't think you can have your cake and eat it on this one.
- moffkalast 4y ago
  If I steal some code and put it on Github under MIT that doesn't really make it MIT, I'm just lying that it is. If Copilot then uses that it's still in violation of the law I'd assume (ignorance doesn't exonerate you etc.). So they'd have to verify on a case by case basis, which they obviously haven't given the volume of data they had to feed the thing. It's kinda shocking that they think they can sell this, even providing it for free is extremely sketchy but at least complies with BSD/GNU/CC licensed stuff I guess.
  - Hamuko 4y ago
    And especially with such blanket statements as "the code you write with GitHub Copilot’s help belongs to you".
  - lupire 4y ago
    Why do you think that the recipient is responsible for verifying that no one else has copyright of code they recieved under license? Is every product user liable when a vendor ships some stolen code?
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      > Is every product user liable when a vendor ships some stolen code? No, but the difference is the users of a product are typically not making and distributing copies. That’s not the case if you use someone else’s code in your project.
    - Closi 4y ago
      > Is every product user liable when a vendor ships some stolen code? The user would be unlicensed, and in lieu of the vendor resolving this then the user would need to purchase licences to continue using the software legally (ie if a vendor gives you a pirate version of photoshop, you can’t just use it forever just because someone sold it to you). There are usually clauses in enterprise software agreements that attribute liability for unlicenced components to the vendor for this reason. But ultimately if there isn’t a contract or the vendor vanishes, the user will need to go get a licence. If you want to test the theory, I’ll send you a few images to put on your website, and when you get a claim through from the copyright owner you can try to argue that I sent it across without a copyright notice so I am liable ;)
Closi 4y ago
It would prove that it doesn't honour all licences - just because the source code exists on Github without a licence doesn't automatically grant a licence to Copilot from a legal perspective.
micromacrofoot 4y ago
just because someone else ignored the license doesn’t mean github is free to blindly vacuum that up

meheleventyone 4y ago

If it's minus a license then it should be assumed that rights are retained (in the same way you can't just take ownership of an image you find on the internet) so if it were filtering it shouldn't take code from repo's without explicit and favorable licenses. If it is taking code only from repo's with permissive licenses (e.g. MIT) then why aren't they following the attribution requirements? I don't think you can have your cake and eat it on this one.

moffkalast 4y ago
If I steal some code and put it on Github under MIT that doesn't really make it MIT, I'm just lying that it is. If Copilot then uses that it's still in violation of the law I'd assume (ignorance doesn't exonerate you etc.). So they'd have to verify on a case by case basis, which they obviously haven't given the volume of data they had to feed the thing. It's kinda shocking that they think they can sell this, even providing it for free is extremely sketchy but at least complies with BSD/GNU/CC licensed stuff I guess.
- Hamuko 4y ago
  And especially with such blanket statements as "the code you write with GitHub Copilot’s help belongs to you".
- lupire 4y ago
  Why do you think that the recipient is responsible for verifying that no one else has copyright of code they recieved under license? Is every product user liable when a vendor ships some stolen code?
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    > Is every product user liable when a vendor ships some stolen code? No, but the difference is the users of a product are typically not making and distributing copies. That’s not the case if you use someone else’s code in your project.
  - Closi 4y ago
    > Is every product user liable when a vendor ships some stolen code? The user would be unlicensed, and in lieu of the vendor resolving this then the user would need to purchase licences to continue using the software legally (ie if a vendor gives you a pirate version of photoshop, you can’t just use it forever just because someone sold it to you). There are usually clauses in enterprise software agreements that attribute liability for unlicenced components to the vendor for this reason. But ultimately if there isn’t a contract or the vendor vanishes, the user will need to go get a licence. If you want to test the theory, I’ll send you a few images to put on your website, and when you get a claim through from the copyright owner you can try to argue that I sent it across without a copyright notice so I am liable ;)

Closi 4y ago

It would prove that it doesn't honour all licences - just because the source code exists on Github without a licence doesn't automatically grant a licence to Copilot from a legal perspective.

micromacrofoot 4y ago

just because someone else ignored the license doesn’t mean github is free to blindly vacuum that up