3 ms·
I did not. That is a curious option to place, given how it would seem to weaken the fair use argument (since they’re providing a way of consciously allowing pro
by chrismorgan 4y ago
I did not. That is a curious option to place, given how it would seem to weaken the fair use argument (since they’re providing a way of consciously allowing probable copyright infringement, rather than just treating the issue as inherent in the nature of learning, or a temporary bug that they’re steadily fixing). But still, to defend my earlier parenthetical claim that Copilot can’t tell whether it’s reproducing copyrightable chunks of code: this option is consistent with what I intended to convey in the paragraph as a whole, since they are developing extra bits around the edges to mitigate the issue, but it’s not possible for them to do it completely—it’s more like a game of whack-a-mole, fixing this class of undesirable reproduction here, that instance there, without causing too much damage to the perceived-legitimate output.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- FireBeyond 4y ago> since they’re providing a way of consciously allowing probable copyright infringement I think the claim that it's "probable copyright infringement" is nowhere near proven. GitHub likely gave that option to satisfy user's lawyers who might have a higher threshold for "clean room" implementations or "no open source". Not as any kind of implication of copyright infringement. Fair use works as an argument to the usability of Copilot. Derivative works, per US Copyright law, are not infringement, either.
- chrismorgan 4y agoI’m talking in the context of verbatim reproduction, which “suggestions matching public code” sounds an awful lot like. At that point, I think “probable copyright infringement” is a fair description.
- FireBeyond 4y agoYour work as a whole may be innovative. is 'if err != nil {' your original work? Or is it 'commonly accepted knowledge' as a Go programmer?