4 ms·

If your code is using a license that allows it, how could you possibly opt-out aside from using a different license?

okasaki 4y ago
Microsoft could provide an opt-out for projects or even contributors, regardless of licence.
nickjj 4y ago
> If your code is using a license that allows it, how could you possibly opt-out aside from using a different license? A repo setting that instructs Github not to use your code for Copilot, it could be a similar option as turning Discussions on / off. If they really want to win developers over they would even have Copilot scanning disabled by default but that'll never happen.
- jonny_eh 4y ago
  Sounds like you want a new license that just prohibits use by one company for one purpose.
  - thamer 4y ago
    There are other AI-based code completion systems than Copilot, at least Tabnine[1] and Kite[2] come to mind, I'm sure there are more. [1] https://www.tabnine.com/ https://www.tabnine.com/ [2] https://www.kite.com/ https://www.kite.com/
    - belter 4y ago
      As of today there is a new one... "Now in Preview – Amazon CodeWhisperer" https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/now-in-preview-amazon-codewhisperer-ml-powered-coding-companion/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/now-in-preview-amazon-codew...
  - widjit 4y ago
    is there something wrong with that?
    - jonny_eh 4y ago
      Not at all, you can put any license on your code that you want.
- quietbritishjim 4y ago
  Even if Github did provide that setting, as a courtesy, someone could clone / fork the code to another repo (if you use any licence that allows it) and not enable that setting.
  - Inityx 4y ago
    Sure that's possible, but there's a huuuge difference between Possible and Default Behavior.
    - TAForObvReasons 4y ago
      In a case like this, GitHub itself could set up a bot account that forks all projects as soon as you make the switch. The company in fact would be incentivized to do so.
bouke 4y ago
Does GitHub verify that the code that is in my repository is actually in accordance to the license that I’ve added? I could just upload any proprietary code with an incorrect license, and GitHub would just use that to feed their AI. Like any other dependency that you incorporate into your application, GitHub should verify/audit whether the license allows them to do so.
sammax 4y ago
Don’t most licenses require at least attribution? I don’t believe GitHub is restricting themselves to only licenses that don’t. In fact the only software licenses I can think of that don’t require attribution are 0BSD, WTFPL, CC0, MIT-0 and Unlicense, and they all aren’t super popular. Also in some countries creators have inalienable moral rights which can be enforced regardless of the license. For example in Germany it is impossible to relinquish certain rights you have as the creator of a work, including the right to attribution.
- TAForObvReasons 4y ago
  This is an important and overlooked point. Even common permissive licenses (ISC / MIT / Apache-2.0) require attribution
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    Just as a mind experiment: couldn't CoPilot just publish a list of every github user and attribute the work to all of them?
    - TAForObvReasons 4y ago
      CoPilot is a black box at the moment. Microsoft claims they used the public corpus on GitHub. There are plenty of GPL, AGPL, and "source available" projects in the public corpus. So what exactly is the licensing? The argument may make sense if they limited themselves to public-domain (CC0) works, but that is not what happened here. If CoPilot attributed something to an AGPL project, does it mean the "virality" applies to all projects that use code from CoPilot?
      - ntoskrnl 4y ago
        There's also a good amount of commercial and leaked source code on GitHub, including MS's own leaked Windows XP source. I haven't played around with Copilot yet, but if I ever do I plan on copy/pasting some win32 API definitions to see if I can get it to spit out any of the leaked source.
igneo676 4y ago
I'm not sure using a different license actually opts you out. By merely hosting your code on GitHub you grant them the right to analyze your code on their servers[1] They may be morally in the wrong, but I'm unsure they are legally in the wrong here. To boot, denying them the right to create this tool in your license is technically a violation of OSS principles and problematic [1]: https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#4-license-grant-to-us https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...
- typetheorist 4y ago
  > This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service, except that as part of the right to archive Your Content, GitHub may permit our partners to store and archive Your Content in public repositories in connection with the GitHub Arctic Code Vault and GitHub Archive Program. Wouldn't this be a violation?

Microsoft could provide an opt-out for projects or even contributors, regardless of licence.

> If your code is using a license that allows it, how could you possibly opt-out aside from using a different license? A repo setting that instructs Github not to use your code for Copilot, it could be a similar option as turning Discussions on / off. If they really want to win developers over they would even have Copilot scanning disabled by default but that'll never happen.

jonny_eh 4y ago
Sounds like you want a new license that just prohibits use by one company for one purpose.
- thamer 4y ago
  There are other AI-based code completion systems than Copilot, at least Tabnine[1] and Kite[2] come to mind, I'm sure there are more. [1] https://www.tabnine.com/ https://www.tabnine.com/ [2] https://www.kite.com/ https://www.kite.com/
  - belter 4y ago
    As of today there is a new one... "Now in Preview – Amazon CodeWhisperer" https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/now-in-preview-amazon-codewhisperer-ml-powered-coding-companion/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/now-in-preview-amazon-codew...
- widjit 4y ago
  is there something wrong with that?
  - jonny_eh 4y ago
    Not at all, you can put any license on your code that you want.
quietbritishjim 4y ago
Even if Github did provide that setting, as a courtesy, someone could clone / fork the code to another repo (if you use any licence that allows it) and not enable that setting.
- Inityx 4y ago
  Sure that's possible, but there's a huuuge difference between Possible and Default Behavior.
  - TAForObvReasons 4y ago
    In a case like this, GitHub itself could set up a bot account that forks all projects as soon as you make the switch. The company in fact would be incentivized to do so.

bouke 4y ago

Does GitHub verify that the code that is in my repository is actually in accordance to the license that I’ve added? I could just upload any proprietary code with an incorrect license, and GitHub would just use that to feed their AI. Like any other dependency that you incorporate into your application, GitHub should verify/audit whether the license allows them to do so.

sammax 4y ago

Don’t most licenses require at least attribution? I don’t believe GitHub is restricting themselves to only licenses that don’t. In fact the only software licenses I can think of that don’t require attribution are 0BSD, WTFPL, CC0, MIT-0 and Unlicense, and they all aren’t super popular. Also in some countries creators have inalienable moral rights which can be enforced regardless of the license. For example in Germany it is impossible to relinquish certain rights you have as the creator of a work, including the right to attribution.

TAForObvReasons 4y ago
This is an important and overlooked point. Even common permissive licenses (ISC / MIT / Apache-2.0) require attribution
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  Just as a mind experiment: couldn't CoPilot just publish a list of every github user and attribute the work to all of them?
  - TAForObvReasons 4y ago
    CoPilot is a black box at the moment. Microsoft claims they used the public corpus on GitHub. There are plenty of GPL, AGPL, and "source available" projects in the public corpus. So what exactly is the licensing? The argument may make sense if they limited themselves to public-domain (CC0) works, but that is not what happened here. If CoPilot attributed something to an AGPL project, does it mean the "virality" applies to all projects that use code from CoPilot?
    - ntoskrnl 4y ago
      There's also a good amount of commercial and leaked source code on GitHub, including MS's own leaked Windows XP source. I haven't played around with Copilot yet, but if I ever do I plan on copy/pasting some win32 API definitions to see if I can get it to spit out any of the leaked source.

igneo676 4y ago

I'm not sure using a different license actually opts you out. By merely hosting your code on GitHub you grant them the right to analyze your code on their servers[1] They may be morally in the wrong, but I'm unsure they are legally in the wrong here. To boot, denying them the right to create this tool in your license is technically a violation of OSS principles and problematic [1]: https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#4-license-grant-to-us https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

typetheorist 4y ago
> This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service, except that as part of the right to archive Your Content, GitHub may permit our partners to store and archive Your Content in public repositories in connection with the GitHub Arctic Code Vault and GitHub Archive Program. Wouldn't this be a violation?