3 ms·

> ‘derivative works’ require the GPL license This keeps coming up, but if you look at the text of the GPL the word ‘derivative’ literally never appears. GPL in

by jakear 4y ago

> ‘derivative works’ require the GPL license This keeps coming up, but if you look at the text of the GPL the word ‘derivative’ literally never appears. GPL in fact explicitly exempts code that is accessed over a web service from needing to be shared, as is the case with copilot.

blihp 4y ago
Derivative works don't need to be referenced in the GPL as it's a concept from copyright law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
- jakear 4y ago
  That just further supports the claim that copilot is in the clear - it is clearly a separate work with many underlying works. Of course the code copilot generates may violate GPL, but that’s up to the tool’s wielder to determine. Just as it is when searching for code on the internet, consulting books, recalling past knowledge, etc. I don’t even use copilot (I had early access and discovered programming languages are better for unambiguous encoding logic than English, go figure). I’m just sick of all these supposed craftsmen blaming their tools rather than holding themselves accountable for what they commit.
  - blihp 4y ago
    Copyright law doesn't work that way. I'd bet this is going to be litigated to a final decision before anyone can say with certainty if/when a NN is violating copyright (i.e. via the training data) or not.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
GoblinSlayer 4y ago
It has the same concept: To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work. A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.
- jakear 4y ago
  Copyright law hold that’s derivative works don’t require copyright permission. So again, copilot is in the clear. Copilot users may not be, but that’s up to them to determine at time of commit.

by jakear 4y ago

blihp 4y ago

Derivative works don't need to be referenced in the GPL as it's a concept from copyright law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

jakear 4y ago
That just further supports the claim that copilot is in the clear - it is clearly a separate work with many underlying works. Of course the code copilot generates may violate GPL, but that’s up to the tool’s wielder to determine. Just as it is when searching for code on the internet, consulting books, recalling past knowledge, etc. I don’t even use copilot (I had early access and discovered programming languages are better for unambiguous encoding logic than English, go figure). I’m just sick of all these supposed craftsmen blaming their tools rather than holding themselves accountable for what they commit.
- blihp 4y ago
  Copyright law doesn't work that way. I'd bet this is going to be litigated to a final decision before anyone can say with certainty if/when a NN is violating copyright (i.e. via the training data) or not.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

GoblinSlayer 4y ago

It has the same concept: To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work. A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.

jakear 4y ago
Copyright law hold that’s derivative works don’t require copyright permission. So again, copilot is in the clear. Copilot users may not be, but that’s up to them to determine at time of commit.