8 ms·

Ask HN: Is GitHub Copilot the death of open source?

• boesboes 4y ago
  They claim it's fair use or somehing like that. I am not sure either way tbh. It really depends wether it repoduces code segments verbatim or just fragments. To use writing as a metaphore, does it reproduce sentences or entire paragraphs. The latter seems iffy, the former seems ok to me.
  • w4ffl35 4y ago
    The fact that they trained on those code bases means they ingested the code. IMO they used libraries and didn't give attribution. AI doesn't actually "learn", it makes inferences based on the reinterpretation of data fed to it by a human. their model is a derivative work.
    • Dracophoenix 4y ago
      I would think this point was already settled in the Google vs Oracle case. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America.... > The inquiry into the “the purpose and character” of the use turns in large measure on whether the copying at issue was “transformative,” i.e., whether it “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character.” Campbell, 510 U. S., at 579. Google’s limited copying of the API is a transformative use. Google copied only what was needed to allow programmers to work in a different computing environment without discarding a portion of a familiar programming language. Google’s purpose was to create a different task-related system for a different computing environment (smartphones) and to create a platform—the Android platform—that would help achieve and popularize that objective. The record demonstrates numerous ways in which reimplementing an interface can further the development of computer programs. Google’s purpose was therefore consistent with that creative progress that is the basic constitutional objective of copyright itself. Pp. 24–28. Creating a model out of training data is transformative. If we apply the Google assessment to Co-Pilot, then Co-pilot is non-infringing as it is only outputting jumbled snippets of source code. The expectation would be that the programmer will decide what to edit and what to compile. The only contention I could see is if Co-pilot outputs whole source code verbatim.
      • w4ffl35 4y ago
        which it does apparently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287
        • Dracophoenix 4y ago
          A year ago, Co-pilot was in beta and wasn't production-ready. I don't think it should be held against Microsoft.
          • w4ffl35 4y ago
            what makes you think the product no longer trains on code it shouldn't be touching?
            • Dracophoenix 4y ago
              Training on open-source code isn't a problem in and of itself. As I said before, the training is likely transformative. Co-pilot operates as little more than a statistical recommendation engine. The biggest issue is the final output. I don't know if Microsoft did anything in particular to solve the issue of verbatim outputs. But whatever the case, I'm of the view that since Co-pilot is now production-ready, Microsoft may now be held legally responsible should such problems arise.
• baisq 4y ago
  Interesting that someone would define code being copied more broadly than it is intended to as the "death of open source". I'm not saying that licence violations are a good thing, but this is a weird take.
• rsstack 4y ago
  People could copy-paste code without following licenses before too. It might cause some people to lose faith in license enforcement, it might cause some people to lose faith in GitHub, but I don't see a scenario where it "kills" Open Source.
  • w4ffl35 4y ago
    This is a massive corporation (Microsoft) showing blatant disregard for license which is very different from small scale individual abuse
    • rsstack 4y ago
      The abuse is mostly academic: What they're doing is _technically_ against copyright law. In practice, someone who wrote a serious JavaScript might have some utility functions "stolen" by Copilot, but it isn't as if it's going to emit forty files of cohesive and well-documented classes. Preact isn't going to suddenly appear in a proprietary codebase of IBM. Maybe their cloneElement function - which is technically copyrighted and licensed, but it isn't why those collaborators decided to spent their time on Open Source.
      • w4ffl35 4y ago
        well, none of us stand to gain from that technicality being violated, only M$ does, and the law does thrive on technicalities.
        • rsstack 4y ago
          The law thrives on technicalities, Open Source isn't doomed by them. Lawyers might make money from this, Microsoft might make money from this, but Open Source won't die from this.
          • w4ffl35 4y ago
            if this is legal then what prevents us from scraping github, gitlab etc. and making the same product? edit: my guess is github / gitlab etc terms of service would probably prevent this.
• SoftTalker 4y ago
  This is the price for free github. All your codes are belong to us.
• jadedbuthappy 4y ago
  I feel like a broken record, but "Opensource is not Github" and "Github isn't opensource." It's time people remember open source existed before Github and it will exist after it. If you don't agree with Github's direction and decision, please use something else. I have been incredibly happy without Github for the last two years and never plan on going back.
  • w4ffl35 4y ago
    Correct, but M$ is challenging all open source licenses by violating them and charging for the product.
    • jadedbuthappy 4y ago
• _fat_santa 4y ago
  I have two thoughts on this: * Copilot isn't nearly as useful as some are making it out to be - I've been seeing thread on Reddit talking about how Copilot will mean devs will now be out of a job, and a bunch of other hot takes about what this means for the industry. I personally think that it won't be all that revolutionary, very useful, but it's not going to disrupt anything. * The "Software vs Snippets" argument: Say you have an OSS project that is MIT licensed. Copilot learns from some of your code and offers suggestions based on what you wrote to another developer for say a helper function or a script. Technically yes, your License was violated and your code was stolen. But when you think about it on a more practical level it's not that big of a deal. The point I'm making is Software is all about composing a bunch of snippets into something of value. A dev ripping off my build script or key extractor helper function isn't the same as them ripping off my entire app. One is just fine, the other is not in my eyes.
  • w4ffl35 4y ago
    the big deal part is that it's a multi billion dollar corporation making money off of a derivative work while blatantly disregarding copyright.
  • anon2020dot00 4y ago
    I agree with the snippets take, Copilot functions like a super-powered search; instead of a Developer looking at code on Github and taking the snippet from it, Copilot just presents that snippet to the developer in a much more quicker fashion.
    • w4ffl35 4y ago
      The problem is not about what it generates, its about how it got the data to generate it.
      • polyterative 4y ago
        what is the difference? the output is the output
• markphip 4y ago
  HN commenters cannot seem to decide if Copilot is not even worth $10 because what it can do is so basic and trivial or if it is somehow the "end of open source" because it can do so much. The latter reaction seems hyperbolic. I have not used copilot yet so cannot comment on whether it is worth $10. It seems fairly useful but from what I have seen in demos it feels like fair use. Open source code is open. It has likely been used to train or influence all sorts of static analysis, formatting and vulnerability tools. Are those also a problem? Hopefully some court challenges will happen and we can get an answer as to the legality. Whenever things like this come up though, I wonder why people contribute to open source in the first place if they are going to be so bothered by their code being used by others. We all know this, or ought to, when we start contributing. There are companies that are going to make money from our contributions.
  • w4ffl35 4y ago
    these are great points. perhaps the question i should have asked was: is this the death of open source licenses?
    • markphip 4y ago
      Other than the SCO Unix/Linux suit, I cannot recall OSS license discussions around a few lines of code. It usually seems to be about direct usage of OSS libraries or applications. That is why I cannot get too worked up about Copilot yet. Just practically speaking, it seems like the scope of what it would do is pretty minor. So my answer to this question, would be No.
      • w4ffl35 4y ago
        The problem I have with it isn't the few lines of code it generates, its the ingestion of the millions of repos from millions of devs, creating an AI model from that free code, and then charging for the product. I'm already a paying customer, I should get free access this thing that was built on free code and free labor that gives absolutely no attribution to the original authors. my side concern (which may be overblown) is that this is the first step to completely replacing programmers and consolidating finances and power even further. Edit: additionally, I'm concerned about the "Death" of open source as in: if Microsoft can violate these licenses, what trust remains in the licenses? If people put restrictive licenses on their open source libraries, and now they know these can be violated, will they continue to support open source? And if so, what is the point of the license to begin with?
• miloignis 4y ago
  Why would someone selling your code make it pointless to contribute to open source software? All the permissive open source licenses allow other people to sell your code anyway! I'm not saying what Microsoft did was right at all, but I don't think it massively changes the dynamics of permissive (or even a decent bit of copyleft) open source development. You contribute to open source because you want open source software to be better for you and for others, and Microsoft's use of it doesn't really affect that equation much (to me, at least). If, on the other hand, someone was contributing to copyleft software because they dislike proprietary software & the corporations behind it, I could see this affecting their decision making, but even in this mindset, what's the other option? If your goal is FOSS and user-modifiable code, not contributing and or not open-sourcing your code is worse than Microsoft taking bits of it! The best strategy for this perspective to me is to remove all your code from GitHub, put it up on SourceHut or something self-hosted, and tell others to do the same (and don't buy Copilot, and tell others!)
  • w4ffl35 4y ago
    > you want open source software to be better for you and for others tell that to M$ who is making $100 per user for that free labor.
    • miloignis 4y ago
      I don't understand this retort -how does M$ making $100 per user for free labor in any way affect users of your contributed FOSS code? My use of KDenLive, Blender, Gimp, or OBS isn't affected at all by the existence of scamware rip-off versions on the internet.
      • w4ffl35 4y ago
        why bother having copyrights at all?
        • miloignis 4y ago
          Again, I'm not saying Microsoft is right - I think they're wrong - but Open Source would do just fine without any copyrights. Indeed, some great open source software is fully in the public domain (SQLite, for instance!) with all copyright explicitly waived. The lack of copyright doesn't affect me using SQLite at all, and I am very grateful for its existence. I generally license my code under very permissive licenses, and would go full public-domain myself if not for worry about it being ineffective in different jurisdictions, also wanting to give patent licenses, etc.
• throwaway290 4y ago
  Many software engineers contribute to OSS for reasons that have little to do with money. They publish code in the open for free in the expectation that other engineers would look at it and learn from it, and while at that appreciate the effort and expertise of the original author. Copilot takes this away, in that a megacorp now uses the above contributions to provide a paid solution that essentially removes the need for people to even know you exist while allowing them to use the results of your work. I don't think it's a death of open source, but it's definitely a mini-death of Github. At least myself personally I'm inclined to switch to SourceHut, which so far seems to be trustworthy, no-bullshit and with clear business model.
• bri3d 4y ago
  People have been stealing open source code in much more meaningful ways for years. I'm more annoyed with, and think we'd be better off directing our ire at the countless embedded device vendors and commercial software vendors who ship GPL binaries with no source, rather than splitting hairs over CoPilot. I find Copilot distasteful and frustrating, but I don't think the misappropriation of code it performs is particularly meaningful. I think it's worth pushing back on, surely, as a matter of principle. But will it "end open source," or do I think about it when I make contributions to open source code or provide solutions to others? Absolutely not.
• neovive 4y ago
  Perhaps my experience with Copilot is different, but I find that the code suggestions tend to model established patterns and best practices (sometimes) across algorithms, languages, and frameworks. I haven't seen any suggested code that surprises me with it's novelty or uniqueness. Many times, it's just interpreting my own code for patterns and saving me from some multi-cursor-fu. The biggest value of Copilot for me is the time saved by not having to search Google and/or documentation. It feels like I'm working with a relatively knowledgeable pair programmer -- which is nice for a solo dev. The value compounds for me since I frequently switch between frameworks with pauses in-between. Since there's concern across the open source community, maybe Microsoft should reconsider the business model and spin-off Copilot as a non-profit. The proceeds can be used fund the staff and servers required to run the service and profits can be shared with open source developers on Github.
  • w4ffl35 4y ago
    The problem is how they got the data to generate anything in the first place. They trained on code with restrictive licenses (according to reports from multiple users), trained on open source free code etc. and then this microsoft the multi billion dollar corporation that acquired your warm and fuzzy home is now selling that code back to its (often times already paying customers) for $100 per year. they are taking more than they are giving, benefiting from free labor. classic corporate move.
• sshine 4y ago
  Does use of Copilot absolve the user from dealing with copyright and license infringements? An author of infringed source code could always make a claim. I can't imagine that it does. That's a problem for releasing some things made with Copilot to the public. And it's a gray-zone for closed-source software, for which any infringement could be hidden.
• ig-88ms 4y ago
  Well I guess we have to invoke a strong copyright, that protects every piece of code, so that no one can steal any of it in any way. And then you'll have your death of open source. It's code, there shouldn't be any copyright to it.
• alkonaut 4y ago
  I don’t care if a contribution I make is regurgitated by a model. It doesn’t affect my willingness or reason to contribute, because it doesn’t somehow make my contribution any worse. I contribute somewhere, and what I contribute to gets better. The copyright-vs-copilot thing is legally interesting, but I really can’t see who would stop contributing to projects because of it? My amateur armchair lawyer guess is also that using a nontrivial piece of copyrighted code without permission won’t be defendable by “copilot wrote that, I didn’t”, so copilot or not, code won’t magically just be washed of copyrights.