Copilot can certainly produce an output which appears "transformative". It can also produce verbatim copies of licensed works. The output exists along a spectru

Copilot can certainly produce an output which appears "transformative". It can also produce verbatim copies of licensed works. The output exists along a spectrum from probably transformative to clearly non-transformative, and it offers no tools for the user to establish the provenance of its output. Fair use is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and this would require that each program produced by Copilot is examined to determine the depth of the transformation. It lives by this vagueness and is abused as a tool for laundering the source code, to wash off the license terms for free software under a suitably complex and inscrutable system that establishing this provenance is not realistic, even if the output would fall on the "non-transformative" end of the scale. I can kind of understand the argument that GitHub itself is, perhaps, not liable for this (setting aside the fact that they use Copilot in their own works, and GitHub's own software would have to be examined under this lens), but it is certainly irresponsible of them and disrespectful of the community that it owes its success to, and it seems to me that its users would definitely be at a higher legal risk.