38 ms·

That's an interesting take but there's not really any protection in current open source licenses to stop someone else from agreeing to GitHub or any other hosti

by yakak 4y ago

That's an interesting take but there's not really any protection in current open source licenses to stop someone else from agreeing to GitHub or any other hosting's terms for their clone of your repo.

fartcannon 4y ago
A lot of open source licenses require numerous things including attribution, at the very least. So when copilot barfs out someones code verbatim, or nearly verbatim, after having memorized that code and it doesn't say who it's referencing, suddenly there's a problem.
- georgyo 4y ago
  IANAL, but still no. The user who uploaded the code did provide attribution. They could have uploaded that code as part of a vendoring. There is not some flag that says they are not the copyright holders. Copilot trains on that code just the same. More importantly, the fair use they are claiming seems to bypass attribution and licensing requirements. It need only access to the code. That is to say that it can 100% train on code hosted elsewhere. Until this fair use gets challenged by lawsuits, it will hold true. The fact that we have not heard of these lawsuits yet, at least to me, shows that lawyers agree it is legal.
  - fartcannon 4y ago
    Just saying what you want to be true, doesn't make it so. Attribution is required for all licenses that require it. Microsoft is laundering intellectual property.
    - yakak 4y ago
      A license is describing how you want to reassign rights given to you by copyright. AFAICT Microsoft believes they are within fair use granted by copyright law itself. If they are correct they don't have to follow individual license terms, if they are incorrect it makes no difference if they scrape or receive code because any complex project is a mix of many past authors not all of whom must be on GitHub.
      - fartcannon 4y ago
        Unfortunately, they're not since it barfs out code verbatim sometimes and gives no attribution. So again, they can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it so.
        georgyo 4y ago
        Just because you say it's violating copyright and licensing doesn't make it so. If the courts don't agree then there is no penalty. It would legally be fair use. It does not matter what you or I think. You are arguing that it is wrong, but very clearly many lawyers disagree with you.
        fartcannon 4y ago
        Just because it hasn't been tested in court yet doesn't mean it's legal, my friend. It's an easy fix. Ask each dev for permission or provide attribution as per each license when the same code comes out of the model. Easy peasy.
  - Hamuko 4y ago
    >That is to say that it can 100% train on code hosted elsewhere. I'm not sure if this is true. The US isn't the only jurisdiction in which GitHub/Microsoft operates in.
btown 4y ago
Not a lawyer but there’s something incredibly subtle here. By only using content on GitHub, GitHub can ensure that every user has agreed to this term specifically: > If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users. https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... And those users indemnify GitHub, too. So code that has been uploaded to GitHub by non-GitHub employees does have a “color” to it (to quote a great blog post on IP law that I can’t find right now) that other instances of the repository under identical licenses on other hosting services do not - because in theory the uploader assumes some responsibility for any dispute! Whether this “color” has significant legal merit is beyond my understanding, but I have no doubt it is a factor in their approach.
- remram 4y ago
  But "these permissions" are listed there explicitly: > you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking) There is no mention of making derivations or anything that looks like it could cover for CoPilot.
- numpad0 4y ago
  Not clear to me how it’s supposed to immunize Copilot from copyright claims, though I can see how it’ll justify its training process. There is a vague supposition widely believed that NN weights do no longer contain training data, and thus the trainee holds full copyright, but that won’t stand when the NN returns excerpts from said training data. Then it just becomes an unattributed copy, and should be subject to takedowns.
- petre 4y ago
  If M$ can parse and index code, they are able to do the same with sofware licenses and skip the projects that forbid this behaviour in robots.txt fashion.

by yakak 4y ago

fartcannon 4y ago

A lot of open source licenses require numerous things including attribution, at the very least. So when copilot barfs out someones code verbatim, or nearly verbatim, after having memorized that code and it doesn't say who it's referencing, suddenly there's a problem.

georgyo 4y ago
IANAL, but still no. The user who uploaded the code did provide attribution. They could have uploaded that code as part of a vendoring. There is not some flag that says they are not the copyright holders. Copilot trains on that code just the same. More importantly, the fair use they are claiming seems to bypass attribution and licensing requirements. It need only access to the code. That is to say that it can 100% train on code hosted elsewhere. Until this fair use gets challenged by lawsuits, it will hold true. The fact that we have not heard of these lawsuits yet, at least to me, shows that lawyers agree it is legal.
- fartcannon 4y ago
  Just saying what you want to be true, doesn't make it so. Attribution is required for all licenses that require it. Microsoft is laundering intellectual property.
  - yakak 4y ago
    A license is describing how you want to reassign rights given to you by copyright. AFAICT Microsoft believes they are within fair use granted by copyright law itself. If they are correct they don't have to follow individual license terms, if they are incorrect it makes no difference if they scrape or receive code because any complex project is a mix of many past authors not all of whom must be on GitHub.
    - fartcannon 4y ago
      Unfortunately, they're not since it barfs out code verbatim sometimes and gives no attribution. So again, they can say whatever they want, it doesn't make it so.
      - georgyo 4y ago
        Just because you say it's violating copyright and licensing doesn't make it so. If the courts don't agree then there is no penalty. It would legally be fair use. It does not matter what you or I think. You are arguing that it is wrong, but very clearly many lawyers disagree with you.
        fartcannon 4y ago
        Just because it hasn't been tested in court yet doesn't mean it's legal, my friend. It's an easy fix. Ask each dev for permission or provide attribution as per each license when the same code comes out of the model. Easy peasy.
- Hamuko 4y ago
  >That is to say that it can 100% train on code hosted elsewhere. I'm not sure if this is true. The US isn't the only jurisdiction in which GitHub/Microsoft operates in.

btown 4y ago

Not a lawyer but there’s something incredibly subtle here. By only using content on GitHub, GitHub can ensure that every user has agreed to this term specifically: > If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users. https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... And those users indemnify GitHub, too. So code that has been uploaded to GitHub by non-GitHub employees does have a “color” to it (to quote a great blog post on IP law that I can’t find right now) that other instances of the repository under identical licenses on other hosting services do not - because in theory the uploader assumes some responsibility for any dispute! Whether this “color” has significant legal merit is beyond my understanding, but I have no doubt it is a factor in their approach.

remram 4y ago
But "these permissions" are listed there explicitly: > you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking) There is no mention of making derivations or anything that looks like it could cover for CoPilot.
numpad0 4y ago
Not clear to me how it’s supposed to immunize Copilot from copyright claims, though I can see how it’ll justify its training process. There is a vague supposition widely believed that NN weights do no longer contain training data, and thus the trainee holds full copyright, but that won’t stand when the NN returns excerpts from said training data. Then it just becomes an unattributed copy, and should be subject to takedowns.
petre 4y ago
If M$ can parse and index code, they are able to do the same with sofware licenses and skip the projects that forbid this behaviour in robots.txt fashion.