8 ms·

I want to know what stuff you guys are putting in public GitHub FOSS repos that you don't want replicated in any way... I also want to know why people think th

I want to know what stuff you guys are putting in public GitHub FOSS repos that you don't want replicated in any way... I also want to know why people think their code is so special that no one else could have ever come up with it independently. Each and every opponent of Copilot is the best developer ever, I guess? That said, I don't understand the choice to use GPL for any reason, so maybe I'm not equipped to understand the arguments against Copilot. Forcing your code to be open forever isn't freedom, it's the omission of freedom. Someone using your (for example) MIT-licensed code in a closed-source commercial software project doesn't "un-free" the code you released; your code is still exactly as open and as available as it was before, and zero freedoms were lost by anyone.

bonzini 4y ago
Forcing your code to be open forever is guaranteeing freedom of all users of my code, both direct and indirect. Developers don't need to have any more freedoms than other users.
- naikrovek 4y ago
  > Forcing your code to be open forever is guaranteeing freedom of all users of [your] code No, that’s forcing restriction on all users of your code. Usage restriction is the opposite of freedom… Forcing all of your code to be GPL is like saying “I am on a diet, so now I will force everyone else be on the same diet. Freedom!”
  - TheDong 4y ago
    What you are pointing out is similar to "the paradox of tolerance" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance By analogy, there is a law against me putting handcuffs on another, and in fact the police would stop me from doing so. Did the police protect freedom? Aren't they restricting me from handcuffing others? In a similar manner, under the MIT I can restrict my users from modifying and compiling my source code. Is a license that means I have to let my users modify code restricting freedom? Isn't it ensuring freedom of others, in the same way that making laws of "you shall not handcuff others for no reason" is ensuring freedom of others?
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    MIT license permits you to deny your users the ability to read and modify the previously open code. GPL license ensures that your users will keep the same freedoms that you got. Of course, there's an inherent conflict - the freedom to oppress others is incompatible with freedom from oppression.
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    > Forcing all of your code to be GPL is like saying “I am on a diet, so now I will force everyone else be on the same diet. Freedom!” Nobody is forcing anyone to use the code. If they chose to use it they have to abide by the licensing terms because that’s how it works. If the people laboring for free to produce this code don’t want it to be used in a proprietary application then tough luck, write the code yourself. Every time the GPL comes up someone drags out this same old dead horse to beat on a little bit more.
    - redeeman 4y ago
      > Nobody is forcing anyone to use the code. until the time comes when a tax department gets the funny idea to use it, and forced you to use it, or people with guns come to your door and haul you away in the morning. (edit: formatting)
      - 3np 4y ago
        I really can't see the code being GPL being an issue in that case. What license would you have preferred?
        redeeman 4y ago
        its not about whether its a problem in real life, its about whether the end user might be forced to use a product, which IS a thing, that that is the ONLY point I made
      - Volundr 4y ago
        Do you have an example of someone being forced to incorporate GPLed code into their software at gunpoint, or is this a wildly hypothetical scenario?
        redeeman 4y ago
        of course not, but the point was about end users
  - cobbzilla 4y ago
    > Forcing all of your code to be GPL is like saying “I am on a diet, so now I will force everyone else be on the same diet. Freedom!” This is a terrible analogy. Here’s a better one: I’m holding a potluck. If you decide to come, you can eat all you want. If you take food from my event, you can’t hoard it, you must share it, even if you’ve “made it better” by changing it somehow after you left. Don’t like my rules? OK, don’t come to my potluck.
  - blacklight 4y ago
    Let me provide you with a counter-example. Suppose that there's a law that states that water and access to it is always supposed to remain public, because water is a public good. Suppose that someone comes tomorrow and starts claiming ownership of all the water springs in your country, he becomes the only entry point to get water, and you have to pay him a fee every time you open a tap. Is he still free to do so? In other words, is the freedom of someone who restrict the freedoms for everyone else still a form of freedom that is worth even considering, let alone respecting? Because the foundation of your ideas is exactly the reason why capitalism fucked things up and just let a bunch of jerks get rich without merit.
WalterBright 4y ago
The D language uses the Boost license because it is the least restrictive. Anyone is free to use it in closed-source non-free commercial apps if they like, or Open Source if they like.
- bombcar 4y ago
  How is Boost different from something like 0-clause BSD?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    I don't know what 0-clause BSD is. The Boost license is: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003 Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization obtaining a copy of the software and accompanying documentation covered by this license (the "Software") to use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit the Software, and to prepare derivative works of the Software, and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to do so, all subject to the following: The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer, must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
    - lovelymono 4y ago
      0-clause BSD goes even further, and completely omits the attribution requirement: Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
JoshTriplett 4y ago
> I want to know what stuff you guys are putting in public GitHub FOSS repos that you don't want replicated in any way... Please feel free to use my code in any way that its license permits: attribution for the permissive licenses, share-and-share-alike for the copyleft licenses. Those license terms are the price of the code, no different from a proprietary product's "this costs $x" or "this costs $x/month". I'm happy to give away most of what I work on every day, and I ask that people 1) give credit, and 2) in some cases, share under the same terms, and 3) in many cases, don't sue me or other users of code I've written over software patents (which shouldn't exist). If the day comes that copyright goes away, and we can freely copy and share the code of any currently proprietary software and other works, I'd celebrate that. Until then, I don't want an asymmetric situation in which proprietary licenses must be adhered to but Open Source licenses are ignored.
- pabs3 4y ago
  If copyright goes away, that won't magically make the source code of all proprietary software public. The only thing that will be liberated is existing shared-source software.
  - account42 4y ago
    It won't magically make the source code appear but it will allow a) Those who do have the source code to share it. Sometimes the source code is available but it can still not be freely used and/or shared. b) Allow modifications and redistribution of the binary artefacts, which for is sufficient for many goals. c) Remove all concerns with reverse engineering and allow e.g. decompiling programs and sharing that source. Also, remember that the GPL already does not make source available externally if the modfications are only used internally.
  - notpushkin 4y ago
    It will make reverse-engineering (non-clean room, even) legal, though.
    - pabs3 4y ago
biztos 4y ago
> their code is so special that no one else could have ever come up with it independently I'm worried about exactly the opposite: having Copilot help me write code that seems quite generic to me, but which in fact makes my code subject to a license I don't even know about, and/or simply violates copyright. For an open-source project this could be embarrassing but probably fixable. It gets more complicated if FAANG is doing due diligence on your company. I can see Copilot being both an accelerant and, later, a liability for startups.
- natefinch 4y ago
  There's a setting on GitHub that blocks any suggestions that exactly match code in the training set. I doubt you'd ever get in trouble for code that was similar in structure but different variables etc from existing licensed code (especially since most small snippets of code are not terribly unique to begin with).
  - biztos 4y ago
    AFAIK that's not enough, for instance see the long-standing industry practice that people working on the Important Stuff are not allowed to ever look at the source code of the Direct Competitor; or clean-room reverse engineering, etc. I guess time will tell how much acquiring companies (my worry) care about Copilot. Given the difficulty hiring good devs, and the productivity level of body-shop devs, I see it getting a whole lot of use very soon, acknowledged or not.
    - natefinch 4y ago
      There's a big difference between reverse engineering (i.e. intentionally writing software that behaves identically to another piece of software), and writing your own code to solve your own problem that may superficially contain small portions of the similar logic as some other project. Copyrighted code has to be sufficiently creative and unique to qualify, otherwise after the first person wrote code to parse json from a web request, no one else would be able to do the same thing.
  - 4y ago
josephcsible 4y ago
> Forcing your code to be open forever isn't freedom, it's the omission of freedom. This isn't true. As an analogy, consider that forcing people to not own slaves isn't the omission of freedom. See also https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html
- entropi 4y ago
  Code is not sentient, has no human rights, masters don't create slaves out of caffeine, etc. etc. This analogy does not hold at all in my opinion.
  - npteljes 4y ago
    No, it's a good analogy, because it's not between the similarity of people and code. The cases are similar, because in both you restrict freedom to enable freedom.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    Making source code available and not requiring the same of those who use it is a temporary fleeting freedom that soon turns into lack of freedom. Like thinking you're ending slavery by freeing all the current slaves but not making it illegal to own, buy, and sell slaves, or capture previously free people into slavery. Guess if you'd have slavery again very soon? The analogy is about freedom vs lack thereof, not manual labour vs software. And as you see, it works very well.
UmbertoNoEco 4y ago
I love how you direct the question to the people putting their code out in their open and not to Microsoft. What is so special about Clippy et al?
- hinkley 4y ago
  Skipped right over the question on the table and asked a whole bunch of passive aggressive questions. Truly a classic.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    You mean skipped right over the moronic statement thinly veiled as a question on the table? As if it deserved better.
gerdesj 4y ago
"I also want to know why people think their code is so special that no one else could have ever come up with it independently. " Really? What exactly does this CoPilot thing actually spit out? I can't help but think that it spits out near verbatim, which in the UK is probably dodgy on Copywrite. You then go on to decide that the GPL isn't for you. That's fine. You even explain that you are ill-equipped for something. That too is fine. You are not a fan of free or "libre" stuff. That comes across loud and clear. Thank you.
chlorion 4y ago
>I want to know what stuff you guys are putting in public GitHub FOSS repos that you don't want replicated in any way... Nobody has claimed that they want this. People just want derived work to adhere to the license they chose for their project. >I also want to know why people think their code is so special that no one else could have ever come up with it independently. Each and every opponent of Copilot is the best developer ever, I guess? Would you feel the same way about ripping off game assets, or music? I think you just have an axe to grind with free software in general based on your messages and the general tone. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that the ideas are invalid. I am also curious why copyright laws should protect proprietary software, music, games, writing, etc but not apply to my software, even if it isn't the highest quality work?
- sossles 4y ago
  At one point does AI recreating patterns it has seen from reading source code count as a derived work? What if a human learns to code by reading only GPLed code, does all the code they write fall under GPL as a derived work now?
  - natefinch 4y ago
    Some interesting reading: https://felixreda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/ https://felixreda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringin... https://fossa.com/blog/analyzing-legal-implications-github-copilot/ https://fossa.com/blog/analyzing-legal-implications-github-c...
    - janosdebugs 4y ago
      There's one thing I'm missing from all these discussions and posts: is the generated code even copyrightable? IANAL, but code snippets often fall under the "scènes à faire" doctrine (everybody would do it in a similar way), in which case it's not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sc%C3%A8nes_%C3%A0_faire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sc%C3%A8nes_%C3%A0_faire
toofy 4y ago
of course that’s freedom. if you say to me “you can’t choose to share your code” you are quite literally taking away my freedom. either code is owned by its licensors or it isn’t. > I also want to know why people think their code is so special that no one else could have ever come up with it independently. I’ve never heard anyone argue this in the real world, ever —and i’ve been involved in this space for years. If someone doesn’t want our code, then they can go ahead and write their own from scratch. We’re certainly not stopping them. many people do seem upset at us that we’re sharing code, tho. particularly that group who primarily make their fortunes from other people’s work.
elcomet 4y ago
This is a very "american" definition of freedom, which is basically, just let me do what I want. GPL uses a different definition of freedom, which I prefer. They look at consequences of restrictions / permissions, and their implication on freedom (not just for me, but for everyone). So some restrictions can lead to actually more freedom, while some permissions can actually decrease freedom. This is similar to gun-control. While it reduces freedom for gun owners, it allows everyone to be more free of hanging out anywhere they want without being afraid of being shot. Similar arguments can be made for vaccine mandates. So GPL restricts usage of software because in the long term it gives back power to users, which will be more free.
- BlitzGeology91 4y ago
  > This is a very "american" definition of freedom, which is basically, just let me do what I want. Eh. I see what you’re saying about gun control, but the idea that “some restrictions can lead to actually more freedom, while some permissions can actually decrease freedom” is actually very American. The free software movement says that everyone deserves software freedom. The Declaration of Independence similarly says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” While I haven’t found a source confirming it, I think that the founders believed that the freedom of speech was one of these unalienable rights. The GPL puts restrictions in place to make sure that downstream projects give users software freedom. The Constitution put restrictions in place to ensure that the federal (and nowadays the entire) government doesn’t interfere with our unalienable rights. Take a look at how the first amendment is worded: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The first amendment does not grant the freedom of speech because it doesn’t need to be granted. From the founders’ perspective, god already grants the freedom of speech to everyone forever. The key phrase here is “Congress shall make no law”. The first amendment is restricting Congress to ensure freedom. The idea that “some permissions can actually decrease freedom” is also present in the Constitution. For example, take a look at Article I sections 8 and 9. The framers of the Constitution could have given Congress the power to pass any law. Instead, they chose to specifically enumerate what Congress can and cannot do. Perhaps, though, most Americans don’t know much about our founding and think that freedom=just let me do what I want. I don’t know.
mr_toad 4y ago
> Someone using your (for example) MIT-licensed code in a closed-source commercial software project doesn't "un-free" the code It’s the users of that closed-source commercial software that lose freedoms. How many times does it have to be stated? GPL is for the users.
jen20 4y ago
"Replicating" it is fine. Violating the license is not.
zzo38computer 4y ago
I think GPL is a good idea (and ensures that everyone is having the freedom from a modified version of the code, and other things that it protects users from), but there is some problem too, such as I think it can be complicated to deal with. For this reason, I had idea to make up a new license (although I will not write most of my ideas here but will do so elsewhere). But, its main working would be: mostly you can do whatever you want (including omitting attribution and copyright notices) without worrying about the license, but you cannot use legal processes (such as lawsuits, DMCA, etc) to prohibit these freedoms to any downstream recipients (regardless of how many). The license would also ensure patents can be used freely, disclaimer of warranty (if the license is included in the copy and the recipient has not paid for the copy), and some other things to ensure freedom (although there can be some restrictions on the use of trademarks (e.g. to avoid false advertising), and some things to avoid working around the freedoms in certain ways). You can be forgiven any number of times, though; the license will not be terminated. Furthermore, for a practical reason of license compatibility, relicensing by GPL3 and AGPL3 (and possibly also CC-BY-SA 4.0, for works other than computer programs) are also allowed, as long as you have a copy of the source code and can satisfy the terms of those licenses.
justjosias 4y ago
Also note: Copilot violates the attribution requirements of permissive licenses like MIT as well. Even if you put your code on GitHub with the intent of it being freely used in proprietary software, attribution is still a fair demand.
- janosdebugs 4y ago
  That assumes the code snippets being copyrightable and nor fair use.
smcameron 4y ago
> I want to know what stuff you guys are putting in public GitHub FOSS repos that you don't want replicated in any way... What a disingenous reply. FOSS licenses do not grant ability to replicate "in any way" that you wish. You still have to comply with the license terms. What the hell is wrong with you? > I don't understand the choice to use GPL for any reason ... The reason is people like YOU.
npteljes 4y ago
Forcing the code to be open is the kind of freedom where restricting locally something enables the freedom globally. Granting the freedom to do whatever with the code will make the code end up used in closed ways, empowering those who close the code. A similar line of thought is the "paradox of tolerance", which posits that if a society tolerates the intolerant, the tolerance of that society will lessen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
blacklight 4y ago
Just to clarify: you seem to believe that most of our code isn't good enough, so copying it is not a big deal. Do you feel the same about other creative processes as well? Can I rip a Justin Bieber's song and say that it's mine just because it's a shitty song anyway, so who cares? Or does this only apply to software because software is somehow an "inferior" art? Do licenses even have any legal value to you?
mountainriver 4y ago
Exactly, this is such griping nonsense from people who are scared of where the industry is heading.
CRConrad 4y ago
> Forcing your code to be open forever isn't freedom, it's the omission of freedom. On the contrary, forcing your code to be open forever is the only way to preserve freedom.
CRConrad 4y ago
Second, shorter reply: > I don't understand the choice to use GPL for any reason No, you just don't understand the GPL. Or, for some reason, pretend not to.
nojito 4y ago
GPL is one of the least free licenses out there.
- ssddanbrown 4y ago
  Freedom of the code to its users vs Freedom of the users of the code
  - nojito 4y ago
    There's no difference. Freedom is freedom. Adding qualifications to it inherently makes it less free.
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      Whose freedom a license guarantees is a fundamental difference, as the freedoms can be in conflict. Which is a freer society: one that restricts late night partiers from playing loud music in residential areas, or the one that does not?
    - danaris 4y ago
      Freedom is not, and cannot be, an absolute. If I am 100% free, that by definition restricts the freedom of others (for instance, if I am free to punch you in the face, you are not free to not be punched in the face; if I am free to own you as a slave, you thus lose a lot of freedoms). Determining what freedom should mean is not, and has never been, a simple matter of "well, if you make any restrictions on it, then it's not real freedom, so everyone just gets to be free!" It's all about finding balance, and dealing with nuance, and all that frustrating hard stuff.

bonzini 4y ago

Forcing your code to be open forever is guaranteeing freedom of all users of my code, both direct and indirect. Developers don't need to have any more freedoms than other users.

naikrovek 4y ago
> Forcing your code to be open forever is guaranteeing freedom of all users of [your] code No, that’s forcing restriction on all users of your code. Usage restriction is the opposite of freedom… Forcing all of your code to be GPL is like saying “I am on a diet, so now I will force everyone else be on the same diet. Freedom!”
- TheDong 4y ago
  What you are pointing out is similar to "the paradox of tolerance" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance By analogy, there is a law against me putting handcuffs on another, and in fact the police would stop me from doing so. Did the police protect freedom? Aren't they restricting me from handcuffing others? In a similar manner, under the MIT I can restrict my users from modifying and compiling my source code. Is a license that means I have to let my users modify code restricting freedom? Isn't it ensuring freedom of others, in the same way that making laws of "you shall not handcuff others for no reason" is ensuring freedom of others?
- PeterisP 4y ago
  MIT license permits you to deny your users the ability to read and modify the previously open code. GPL license ensures that your users will keep the same freedoms that you got. Of course, there's an inherent conflict - the freedom to oppress others is incompatible with freedom from oppression.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  > Forcing all of your code to be GPL is like saying “I am on a diet, so now I will force everyone else be on the same diet. Freedom!” Nobody is forcing anyone to use the code. If they chose to use it they have to abide by the licensing terms because that’s how it works. If the people laboring for free to produce this code don’t want it to be used in a proprietary application then tough luck, write the code yourself. Every time the GPL comes up someone drags out this same old dead horse to beat on a little bit more.
  - redeeman 4y ago
    > Nobody is forcing anyone to use the code. until the time comes when a tax department gets the funny idea to use it, and forced you to use it, or people with guns come to your door and haul you away in the morning. (edit: formatting)
    - 3np 4y ago
      I really can't see the code being GPL being an issue in that case. What license would you have preferred?
      - redeeman 4y ago
        its not about whether its a problem in real life, its about whether the end user might be forced to use a product, which IS a thing, that that is the ONLY point I made
    - Volundr 4y ago
      Do you have an example of someone being forced to incorporate GPLed code into their software at gunpoint, or is this a wildly hypothetical scenario?
      - redeeman 4y ago
        of course not, but the point was about end users
- cobbzilla 4y ago
  > Forcing all of your code to be GPL is like saying “I am on a diet, so now I will force everyone else be on the same diet. Freedom!” This is a terrible analogy. Here’s a better one: I’m holding a potluck. If you decide to come, you can eat all you want. If you take food from my event, you can’t hoard it, you must share it, even if you’ve “made it better” by changing it somehow after you left. Don’t like my rules? OK, don’t come to my potluck.
- blacklight 4y ago
  Let me provide you with a counter-example. Suppose that there's a law that states that water and access to it is always supposed to remain public, because water is a public good. Suppose that someone comes tomorrow and starts claiming ownership of all the water springs in your country, he becomes the only entry point to get water, and you have to pay him a fee every time you open a tap. Is he still free to do so? In other words, is the freedom of someone who restrict the freedoms for everyone else still a form of freedom that is worth even considering, let alone respecting? Because the foundation of your ideas is exactly the reason why capitalism fucked things up and just let a bunch of jerks get rich without merit.

WalterBright 4y ago

The D language uses the Boost license because it is the least restrictive. Anyone is free to use it in closed-source non-free commercial apps if they like, or Open Source if they like.

bombcar 4y ago
How is Boost different from something like 0-clause BSD?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  I don't know what 0-clause BSD is. The Boost license is: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003 Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization obtaining a copy of the software and accompanying documentation covered by this license (the "Software") to use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit the Software, and to prepare derivative works of the Software, and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to do so, all subject to the following: The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer, must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
  - lovelymono 4y ago
    0-clause BSD goes even further, and completely omits the attribution requirement: Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

JoshTriplett 4y ago

> I want to know what stuff you guys are putting in public GitHub FOSS repos that you don't want replicated in any way... Please feel free to use my code in any way that its license permits: attribution for the permissive licenses, share-and-share-alike for the copyleft licenses. Those license terms are the price of the code, no different from a proprietary product's "this costs $x" or "this costs $x/month". I'm happy to give away most of what I work on every day, and I ask that people 1) give credit, and 2) in some cases, share under the same terms, and 3) in many cases, don't sue me or other users of code I've written over software patents (which shouldn't exist). If the day comes that copyright goes away, and we can freely copy and share the code of any currently proprietary software and other works, I'd celebrate that. Until then, I don't want an asymmetric situation in which proprietary licenses must be adhered to but Open Source licenses are ignored.

pabs3 4y ago
If copyright goes away, that won't magically make the source code of all proprietary software public. The only thing that will be liberated is existing shared-source software.
- account42 4y ago
  It won't magically make the source code appear but it will allow a) Those who do have the source code to share it. Sometimes the source code is available but it can still not be freely used and/or shared. b) Allow modifications and redistribution of the binary artefacts, which for is sufficient for many goals. c) Remove all concerns with reverse engineering and allow e.g. decompiling programs and sharing that source. Also, remember that the GPL already does not make source available externally if the modfications are only used internally.
- notpushkin 4y ago
  It will make reverse-engineering (non-clean room, even) legal, though.
  - pabs3 4y ago

biztos 4y ago

> their code is so special that no one else could have ever come up with it independently I'm worried about exactly the opposite: having Copilot help me write code that seems quite generic to me, but which in fact makes my code subject to a license I don't even know about, and/or simply violates copyright. For an open-source project this could be embarrassing but probably fixable. It gets more complicated if FAANG is doing due diligence on your company. I can see Copilot being both an accelerant and, later, a liability for startups.

natefinch 4y ago
There's a setting on GitHub that blocks any suggestions that exactly match code in the training set. I doubt you'd ever get in trouble for code that was similar in structure but different variables etc from existing licensed code (especially since most small snippets of code are not terribly unique to begin with).
- biztos 4y ago
  AFAIK that's not enough, for instance see the long-standing industry practice that people working on the Important Stuff are not allowed to ever look at the source code of the Direct Competitor; or clean-room reverse engineering, etc. I guess time will tell how much acquiring companies (my worry) care about Copilot. Given the difficulty hiring good devs, and the productivity level of body-shop devs, I see it getting a whole lot of use very soon, acknowledged or not.
  - natefinch 4y ago
    There's a big difference between reverse engineering (i.e. intentionally writing software that behaves identically to another piece of software), and writing your own code to solve your own problem that may superficially contain small portions of the similar logic as some other project. Copyrighted code has to be sufficiently creative and unique to qualify, otherwise after the first person wrote code to parse json from a web request, no one else would be able to do the same thing.
- 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago

> Forcing your code to be open forever isn't freedom, it's the omission of freedom. This isn't true. As an analogy, consider that forcing people to not own slaves isn't the omission of freedom. See also https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html

entropi 4y ago
Code is not sentient, has no human rights, masters don't create slaves out of caffeine, etc. etc. This analogy does not hold at all in my opinion.
- npteljes 4y ago
  No, it's a good analogy, because it's not between the similarity of people and code. The cases are similar, because in both you restrict freedom to enable freedom.
- CRConrad 4y ago
  Making source code available and not requiring the same of those who use it is a temporary fleeting freedom that soon turns into lack of freedom. Like thinking you're ending slavery by freeing all the current slaves but not making it illegal to own, buy, and sell slaves, or capture previously free people into slavery. Guess if you'd have slavery again very soon? The analogy is about freedom vs lack thereof, not manual labour vs software. And as you see, it works very well.

UmbertoNoEco 4y ago

I love how you direct the question to the people putting their code out in their open and not to Microsoft. What is so special about Clippy et al?

hinkley 4y ago
Skipped right over the question on the table and asked a whole bunch of passive aggressive questions. Truly a classic.
- CRConrad 4y ago
  You mean skipped right over the moronic statement thinly veiled as a question on the table? As if it deserved better.

gerdesj 4y ago

"I also want to know why people think their code is so special that no one else could have ever come up with it independently. " Really? What exactly does this CoPilot thing actually spit out? I can't help but think that it spits out near verbatim, which in the UK is probably dodgy on Copywrite. You then go on to decide that the GPL isn't for you. That's fine. You even explain that you are ill-equipped for something. That too is fine. You are not a fan of free or "libre" stuff. That comes across loud and clear. Thank you.

chlorion 4y ago

>I want to know what stuff you guys are putting in public GitHub FOSS repos that you don't want replicated in any way... Nobody has claimed that they want this. People just want derived work to adhere to the license they chose for their project. >I also want to know why people think their code is so special that no one else could have ever come up with it independently. Each and every opponent of Copilot is the best developer ever, I guess? Would you feel the same way about ripping off game assets, or music? I think you just have an axe to grind with free software in general based on your messages and the general tone. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that the ideas are invalid. I am also curious why copyright laws should protect proprietary software, music, games, writing, etc but not apply to my software, even if it isn't the highest quality work?

sossles 4y ago
At one point does AI recreating patterns it has seen from reading source code count as a derived work? What if a human learns to code by reading only GPLed code, does all the code they write fall under GPL as a derived work now?
- natefinch 4y ago
  Some interesting reading: https://felixreda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/ https://felixreda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringin... https://fossa.com/blog/analyzing-legal-implications-github-copilot/ https://fossa.com/blog/analyzing-legal-implications-github-c...
  - janosdebugs 4y ago
    There's one thing I'm missing from all these discussions and posts: is the generated code even copyrightable? IANAL, but code snippets often fall under the "scènes à faire" doctrine (everybody would do it in a similar way), in which case it's not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sc%C3%A8nes_%C3%A0_faire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sc%C3%A8nes_%C3%A0_faire

toofy 4y ago

of course that’s freedom. if you say to me “you can’t choose to share your code” you are quite literally taking away my freedom. either code is owned by its licensors or it isn’t. > I also want to know why people think their code is so special that no one else could have ever come up with it independently. I’ve never heard anyone argue this in the real world, ever —and i’ve been involved in this space for years. If someone doesn’t want our code, then they can go ahead and write their own from scratch. We’re certainly not stopping them. many people do seem upset at us that we’re sharing code, tho. particularly that group who primarily make their fortunes from other people’s work.

elcomet 4y ago

This is a very "american" definition of freedom, which is basically, just let me do what I want. GPL uses a different definition of freedom, which I prefer. They look at consequences of restrictions / permissions, and their implication on freedom (not just for me, but for everyone). So some restrictions can lead to actually more freedom, while some permissions can actually decrease freedom. This is similar to gun-control. While it reduces freedom for gun owners, it allows everyone to be more free of hanging out anywhere they want without being afraid of being shot. Similar arguments can be made for vaccine mandates. So GPL restricts usage of software because in the long term it gives back power to users, which will be more free.

BlitzGeology91 4y ago
> This is a very "american" definition of freedom, which is basically, just let me do what I want. Eh. I see what you’re saying about gun control, but the idea that “some restrictions can lead to actually more freedom, while some permissions can actually decrease freedom” is actually very American. The free software movement says that everyone deserves software freedom. The Declaration of Independence similarly says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” While I haven’t found a source confirming it, I think that the founders believed that the freedom of speech was one of these unalienable rights. The GPL puts restrictions in place to make sure that downstream projects give users software freedom. The Constitution put restrictions in place to ensure that the federal (and nowadays the entire) government doesn’t interfere with our unalienable rights. Take a look at how the first amendment is worded: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The first amendment does not grant the freedom of speech because it doesn’t need to be granted. From the founders’ perspective, god already grants the freedom of speech to everyone forever. The key phrase here is “Congress shall make no law”. The first amendment is restricting Congress to ensure freedom. The idea that “some permissions can actually decrease freedom” is also present in the Constitution. For example, take a look at Article I sections 8 and 9. The framers of the Constitution could have given Congress the power to pass any law. Instead, they chose to specifically enumerate what Congress can and cannot do. Perhaps, though, most Americans don’t know much about our founding and think that freedom=just let me do what I want. I don’t know.

mr_toad 4y ago

> Someone using your (for example) MIT-licensed code in a closed-source commercial software project doesn't "un-free" the code It’s the users of that closed-source commercial software that lose freedoms. How many times does it have to be stated? GPL is for the users.

jen20 4y ago

"Replicating" it is fine. Violating the license is not.

zzo38computer 4y ago

I think GPL is a good idea (and ensures that everyone is having the freedom from a modified version of the code, and other things that it protects users from), but there is some problem too, such as I think it can be complicated to deal with. For this reason, I had idea to make up a new license (although I will not write most of my ideas here but will do so elsewhere). But, its main working would be: mostly you can do whatever you want (including omitting attribution and copyright notices) without worrying about the license, but you cannot use legal processes (such as lawsuits, DMCA, etc) to prohibit these freedoms to any downstream recipients (regardless of how many). The license would also ensure patents can be used freely, disclaimer of warranty (if the license is included in the copy and the recipient has not paid for the copy), and some other things to ensure freedom (although there can be some restrictions on the use of trademarks (e.g. to avoid false advertising), and some things to avoid working around the freedoms in certain ways). You can be forgiven any number of times, though; the license will not be terminated. Furthermore, for a practical reason of license compatibility, relicensing by GPL3 and AGPL3 (and possibly also CC-BY-SA 4.0, for works other than computer programs) are also allowed, as long as you have a copy of the source code and can satisfy the terms of those licenses.

justjosias 4y ago

Also note: Copilot violates the attribution requirements of permissive licenses like MIT as well. Even if you put your code on GitHub with the intent of it being freely used in proprietary software, attribution is still a fair demand.

janosdebugs 4y ago
That assumes the code snippets being copyrightable and nor fair use.

smcameron 4y ago

> I want to know what stuff you guys are putting in public GitHub FOSS repos that you don't want replicated in any way... What a disingenous reply. FOSS licenses do not grant ability to replicate "in any way" that you wish. You still have to comply with the license terms. What the hell is wrong with you? > I don't understand the choice to use GPL for any reason ... The reason is people like YOU.

npteljes 4y ago

Forcing the code to be open is the kind of freedom where restricting locally something enables the freedom globally. Granting the freedom to do whatever with the code will make the code end up used in closed ways, empowering those who close the code. A similar line of thought is the "paradox of tolerance", which posits that if a society tolerates the intolerant, the tolerance of that society will lessen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

blacklight 4y ago

Just to clarify: you seem to believe that most of our code isn't good enough, so copying it is not a big deal. Do you feel the same about other creative processes as well? Can I rip a Justin Bieber's song and say that it's mine just because it's a shitty song anyway, so who cares? Or does this only apply to software because software is somehow an "inferior" art? Do licenses even have any legal value to you?

mountainriver 4y ago

Exactly, this is such griping nonsense from people who are scared of where the industry is heading.

CRConrad 4y ago

> Forcing your code to be open forever isn't freedom, it's the omission of freedom. On the contrary, forcing your code to be open forever is the only way to preserve freedom.

CRConrad 4y ago

Second, shorter reply: > I don't understand the choice to use GPL for any reason No, you just don't understand the GPL. Or, for some reason, pretend not to.

nojito 4y ago

GPL is one of the least free licenses out there.

ssddanbrown 4y ago
Freedom of the code to its users vs Freedom of the users of the code
- nojito 4y ago
  There's no difference. Freedom is freedom. Adding qualifications to it inherently makes it less free.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    Whose freedom a license guarantees is a fundamental difference, as the freedoms can be in conflict. Which is a freer society: one that restricts late night partiers from playing loud music in residential areas, or the one that does not?
  - danaris 4y ago
    Freedom is not, and cannot be, an absolute. If I am 100% free, that by definition restricts the freedom of others (for instance, if I am free to punch you in the face, you are not free to not be punched in the face; if I am free to own you as a slave, you thus lose a lot of freedoms). Determining what freedom should mean is not, and has never been, a simple matter of "well, if you make any restrictions on it, then it's not real freedom, so everyone just gets to be free!" It's all about finding balance, and dealing with nuance, and all that frustrating hard stuff.