3 ms·

> You can make a model that is trained only with BSD and MIT code, and IIRC/IIUC the result can be used with any license, including proprietary code. BSD and M

by q-big 4y ago

> You can make a model that is trained only with BSD and MIT code, and IIRC/IIUC the result can be used with any license, including proprietary code. BSD and MIT license still require attribution of the used source code (there exists a MIT No Attribution License, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MIT_License&oldid=1091025780#MIT_No_Attribution_License https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MIT_License&oldid...).

wolpoli 4y ago
Great. Now developers will need to check license compatibility before picking the copilot model. In reality through, we'll all just end up using the MIT No Attribution License copilot.
- q-big 4y ago
  Developers already have to check license compatibility. If copilot implemented such a feature, this would just represent the status quo.
- xigoi 4y ago
  > In reality through, we'll all just end up using the MIT No Attribution License copilot. Great, so GPL code would be left alone. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
mbreese 4y ago
> BSD and MIT license still require attribution of the used source code Which in this scenario could be accomplished by starting that “this software contains algorithmically generated code that was trained using MIT derived code from X, Y, and Z. This attribution list would be very long, but it could be done. I think the interesting thing here would be to compare the generated code with the original training data after the fact. If the generated code does not already exist (with some degree of similarity), then it would be okay to use. Otherwise, if it did already exist, you’d then need to attribute the authors of the chunk of code — which you’d now know. I’m not discounting the hurdles involved, but there might be ways to overcome them.
jimmySixDOF 4y ago
Whats to stop them from just making a huge attribution page with every possible instance and a vague statement like "the following may or may not have been incorporated in part or in whole" ?
- jacobolus 4y ago
  They’d be gambling that such a crummy attribution would hold up in court. Generally judges aren’t too amused by people’s efforts to find wacky loopholes that make a mockery of the law. On the other hand, open source licenses haven’t been tested thoroughly in court, so maybe the result would be to throw out such attribution requirements entirely. The main relevant case to date is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer

by q-big 4y ago

wolpoli 4y ago

Great. Now developers will need to check license compatibility before picking the copilot model. In reality through, we'll all just end up using the MIT No Attribution License copilot.

q-big 4y ago
Developers already have to check license compatibility. If copilot implemented such a feature, this would just represent the status quo.
xigoi 4y ago
> In reality through, we'll all just end up using the MIT No Attribution License copilot. Great, so GPL code would be left alone. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

mbreese 4y ago

> BSD and MIT license still require attribution of the used source code Which in this scenario could be accomplished by starting that “this software contains algorithmically generated code that was trained using MIT derived code from X, Y, and Z. This attribution list would be very long, but it could be done. I think the interesting thing here would be to compare the generated code with the original training data after the fact. If the generated code does not already exist (with some degree of similarity), then it would be okay to use. Otherwise, if it did already exist, you’d then need to attribute the authors of the chunk of code — which you’d now know. I’m not discounting the hurdles involved, but there might be ways to overcome them.

jimmySixDOF 4y ago

Whats to stop them from just making a huge attribution page with every possible instance and a vague statement like "the following may or may not have been incorporated in part or in whole" ?

jacobolus 4y ago
They’d be gambling that such a crummy attribution would hold up in court. Generally judges aren’t too amused by people’s efforts to find wacky loopholes that make a mockery of the law. On the other hand, open source licenses haven’t been tested thoroughly in court, so maybe the result would be to throw out such attribution requirements entirely. The main relevant case to date is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer