4 ms·
The model itself is a derivative work of GPLed code and thus should itself be open sourced. Granted by the time it’s spat out it’s probably an unreadable binary
by mnd999 4y ago
The model itself is a derivative work of GPLed code and thus should itself be open sourced. Granted by the time it’s spat out it’s probably an unreadable binary blob but it would be nice to have access to it for GPLed projects.
- mbreese 4y agoI’m not sure about the vitality of GPL here. Assuming the generated code does not exist and is not part of the training set (these are two giant caveats), how would this be different from me reading GPL code to learn how to do something, and then rewriting it in my own words? If I have not copied, but learned from GPL code, is my new code GPL? No, it’s not a derived work in terms of copyright. Am I standing on the shoulders of giants? Yes. But so long as that concept is expressed in a novel way (not just changing variable names), then it isn’t a derivative work. I haven’t worked with copilot at all to know how verbatim the results are, but it is theoretically possible to train a model with GPL code and not get GPL code generated out the other side. (Again, here be dragons).
- jen20 4y ago> how would this be different from me reading GPL code to learn how to do something, and then rewriting it in my own words? No different - that is also not allowed. The idea of clean room reverse engineering exists exactly for this reason.
- nathanielarmer 4y agoDo you have a source for that claim? My understanding is the GPL based on copyright - and that copyright only protects a specific expression, not a general idea or concept. To suggest that if something is copyrighted, humans cannot learn from it and generate thier own material seems to be absurd.