4 ms·

IMO, all these concerns about licensing ignore a pretty important fact: Copilot is (in most cases) no different from a human. If I read the code for, I don't k

by _7bxa 4y ago

IMO, all these concerns about licensing ignore a pretty important fact: Copilot is (in most cases) no different from a human. If I read the code for, I don't know, some GPL-3 library and then write my own MIT-licensed version--that's totally fine. A programmer can read strictly licensed code and then use that knowledge to write their own non-strictly licensed code. Copilot is not different from a human. It has knowledge & it uses it. It isn't copy-and-pasting (there are 1/2 edge cases where it is; but for the most part it's new ideas). It's the same thing as saying "Dall-E 2 is plagiarizing art". When I write a quicksort algorithm, I don't give any attribute to the code I saw for the algorithm in some random library. Fundamentally, there's no real difference between Copilot and a human. I've watched Copilot write crazy lodash one-liners that were clearly contextual to my code. I think what is fundamentally happening here is that older people / people of the last generation are realizing that just as sys admin jobs / etc. are going away, soon many rote coding jobs will be taken away since Copilot will automate them. And that's fine, but it is producing backlash which comes in the form of licensing issues. Basically, there's no difference between Copilot and Dall-E and it's pretty clear that Dall-E has no licensing issues, thus Copilot should also be in the clear.

kixiQu 4y ago
Why do you think it is clear that DALL-E has no licensing issues? Determining what art is ripping off what (to a legally meaningful extent, not cutesy "great artists steal" bullshit) is not at all clear cut, even before automated transformations get involved.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  What we are discovering is that copyright is largely bullshit. 5 line code snipets shouldn’t have any copyright. Copyright should apply to large and whole pieces of work only. The whole of a painting should be copyrighted. The style and technique should not. Same for code. Windows as a whole should have copyright. The snipit that handles a mouse click should not.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    If you take a look at existing case law this is basically the current interpretation. There is a notion of de minimis, for example.
trention 4y ago
>Fundamentally, there's no real difference between Copilot and a human Fundamentally, it's absolutely OK to allow humans to do the thing X and to prohibit AI from doing it. This is what I hope will happen here (though it probably won't). >soon many rote coding jobs will be taken away since Copilot will automate them. And that's fine Good luck finding enough non-rote jobs to re-employ those developers. It will be an interesting reflection though when "just learn to code" turns into "just learn to lay bricks for $10 an hour".
Tyr42 4y ago
> If I read the code for, I don't know, some GPL-3 library and then write my own MIT-licensed version--that's totally fine. There's a reason people sometimes clean room document some code, then have a different set of people who never read the source re-implement it with out ever having seen the source. To avoid these kinds of issues. I don't think that's always fine.
- _7bxa 4y ago
  Yeah, using Copilot in a clean room implementation is bad. Luckily, many things don't have to be clean room implementations!
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  Which is done purely on speculative precaution and isn't based on any case law. In fact, the little case law that exists on the idea/expression distinction as related to software copyrights ended up in favor of the direct source code/disassembly reading approach (Sony v. Connectix)
josephcsible 4y ago
> If I read the code for, I don't know, some GPL-3 library and then write my own MIT-licensed version--that's totally fine. > A programmer can read strictly licensed code and then use that knowledge to write their own non-strictly licensed code. If you've ever read the Windows source code, you're never allowed to contribute any code of your own to Wine or ReactOS.
- _7bxa 4y ago
  Yeah, there are probably some edge projects where Copilot can't be used. For the vast majority? Seems fine.
- google234123 4y ago
  That’s funny because a lot of reactOS is clearly copied from the leaked windows research kernel.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Is there actually any independently verifiable evidence of this, or do you believe it solely because a Microsoft employee said it was true?
  - jeditobe 4y ago
    no
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  And that is based purely on speculation and has no legal basis whatsoever. Whatever happened to the idea/expression distinction?
BeefWellington 4y ago
> IMO, all these concerns about licensing ignore a pretty important fact: Copilot is (in most cases) no different from a human. This is incorrect. Humans are capable of creating. Copilot is merely capable of regurgitating. > If I read the code for, I don't know, some GPL-3 library and then write my own MIT-licensed version--that's totally fine. It's actually not totally fine and there have been many many many court cases over this sort of thing, both with non-commercial and commercial licenses. The whole concept of clean-room implementation exists as a defense to this. > When I write a quicksort algorithm, I don't give any attribute to the code I saw for the algorithm in some random library. If it's substantially similar to the library's, it's entirely possible you're violating their license terms and/or copyright. > Basically, there's no difference between Copilot and Dall-E and it's pretty clear that Dall-E has no licensing issues, thus Copilot should also be in the clear. I'm not sure this is correct. If DALL-E began outputting verbatim copies of other people's works, they could very well be sued over it. Similarly, if it produced trademarked symbols like the Nike swoosh, the Golden Arches, or the Starbucks logo, it's not like those aren't going to get you sued. Infringement is about the produced thing (code block or image or whatever else) and its use, not the method of generating it.
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  > It's actually not totally fine and there have been many many many court cases over this sort of thing, both with non-commercial and commercial licenses. The whole concept of clean-room implementation exists as a defense to this. I suggest you read the Sony v. Connectix appeal veredict.
  - BeefWellington 4y ago
    This actually only bolsters my point. Is the risk that you'll be sued because some developer unintentionally used fully-reproduced code worth using copilot?
    - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
      Stare decisis is supposed to account for that. The Connectix decision has created a safe space for both emulators and non-cleanroom reversing.

by _7bxa 4y ago

kixiQu 4y ago

Why do you think it is clear that DALL-E has no licensing issues? Determining what art is ripping off what (to a legally meaningful extent, not cutesy "great artists steal" bullshit) is not at all clear cut, even before automated transformations get involved.

Gigachad 4y ago
What we are discovering is that copyright is largely bullshit. 5 line code snipets shouldn’t have any copyright. Copyright should apply to large and whole pieces of work only. The whole of a painting should be copyrighted. The style and technique should not. Same for code. Windows as a whole should have copyright. The snipit that handles a mouse click should not.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  If you take a look at existing case law this is basically the current interpretation. There is a notion of de minimis, for example.

trention 4y ago

>Fundamentally, there's no real difference between Copilot and a human Fundamentally, it's absolutely OK to allow humans to do the thing X and to prohibit AI from doing it. This is what I hope will happen here (though it probably won't). >soon many rote coding jobs will be taken away since Copilot will automate them. And that's fine Good luck finding enough non-rote jobs to re-employ those developers. It will be an interesting reflection though when "just learn to code" turns into "just learn to lay bricks for $10 an hour".

Tyr42 4y ago

> If I read the code for, I don't know, some GPL-3 library and then write my own MIT-licensed version--that's totally fine. There's a reason people sometimes clean room document some code, then have a different set of people who never read the source re-implement it with out ever having seen the source. To avoid these kinds of issues. I don't think that's always fine.

_7bxa 4y ago
Yeah, using Copilot in a clean room implementation is bad. Luckily, many things don't have to be clean room implementations!
EMIRELADERO 4y ago
Which is done purely on speculative precaution and isn't based on any case law. In fact, the little case law that exists on the idea/expression distinction as related to software copyrights ended up in favor of the direct source code/disassembly reading approach (Sony v. Connectix)

josephcsible 4y ago

> If I read the code for, I don't know, some GPL-3 library and then write my own MIT-licensed version--that's totally fine. > A programmer can read strictly licensed code and then use that knowledge to write their own non-strictly licensed code. If you've ever read the Windows source code, you're never allowed to contribute any code of your own to Wine or ReactOS.

_7bxa 4y ago
Yeah, there are probably some edge projects where Copilot can't be used. For the vast majority? Seems fine.
google234123 4y ago
That’s funny because a lot of reactOS is clearly copied from the leaked windows research kernel.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Is there actually any independently verifiable evidence of this, or do you believe it solely because a Microsoft employee said it was true?
- jeditobe 4y ago
  no
EMIRELADERO 4y ago
And that is based purely on speculation and has no legal basis whatsoever. Whatever happened to the idea/expression distinction?

BeefWellington 4y ago

> IMO, all these concerns about licensing ignore a pretty important fact: Copilot is (in most cases) no different from a human. This is incorrect. Humans are capable of creating. Copilot is merely capable of regurgitating. > If I read the code for, I don't know, some GPL-3 library and then write my own MIT-licensed version--that's totally fine. It's actually not totally fine and there have been many many many court cases over this sort of thing, both with non-commercial and commercial licenses. The whole concept of clean-room implementation exists as a defense to this. > When I write a quicksort algorithm, I don't give any attribute to the code I saw for the algorithm in some random library. If it's substantially similar to the library's, it's entirely possible you're violating their license terms and/or copyright. > Basically, there's no difference between Copilot and Dall-E and it's pretty clear that Dall-E has no licensing issues, thus Copilot should also be in the clear. I'm not sure this is correct. If DALL-E began outputting verbatim copies of other people's works, they could very well be sued over it. Similarly, if it produced trademarked symbols like the Nike swoosh, the Golden Arches, or the Starbucks logo, it's not like those aren't going to get you sued. Infringement is about the produced thing (code block or image or whatever else) and its use, not the method of generating it.

EMIRELADERO 4y ago
> It's actually not totally fine and there have been many many many court cases over this sort of thing, both with non-commercial and commercial licenses. The whole concept of clean-room implementation exists as a defense to this. I suggest you read the Sony v. Connectix appeal veredict.
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  This actually only bolsters my point. Is the risk that you'll be sued because some developer unintentionally used fully-reproduced code worth using copilot?
  - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
    Stare decisis is supposed to account for that. The Connectix decision has created a safe space for both emulators and non-cleanroom reversing.