3 ms·

Is looking at GPL code and rewriting it from scratch in your own style a license breach? For me, Copilot always uses the context and writes new code based on yo

by Kiro 4y ago

Is looking at GPL code and rewriting it from scratch in your own style a license breach? For me, Copilot always uses the context and writes new code based on your own code as input. It uses the same patterns and code style as your own code.

bayindirh 4y ago
Yes. When you write the same algorithm, even with a different style, it's a direct derivation of the code at hand. Derivative works of GPL licensed code are still GPL licensed. Moreover, Copilot doesn't always derive code, but provides the code as-is, reproducing it comment by comment [0], and with a wrong license while at that. [0]: https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309 https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309
- williamcotton 4y ago
  Only the expressive elements of an algorithm fall under copyright. Generally speaking math equations and algorithms can’t be restricted by copyright. Expressive, non-technical comments in code are most definitely protected by copyright.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    So, I can use a code from a leaked source code as I wish, and duplicate all the algorithms and methods for achieving something. Nice. Well, we're so naive for making clean room development for so long, and writing EULA's with sentences all in caps stating that this is a trade secret and you can't do anything with it. BTW, I want to reiterate that I'm trying to keep things open, not closed. So I'm not trying to copyright and protect it from being modified. This is what GPL is actually. So, the research is already there, in the form of a paper. You can re-implement that. But, my implementation is under GPLv3. So I'm not copyrighting/patenting the algorithm. It's certain expression I've implemented as a code, and opened under GPL. As a result, if you derive anything from my implementation, that's GPL too. If you want that algorithm, it's on paper. Go implement that. I don't care.
plorkyeran 4y ago
Yes, actually. That's why clean-room design is a thing.
tadfisher 4y ago
Note that the controlling framework here is copyright law, hence the term "copyright license". A lawyer will tell you that reimplementing code you have read, even if you change around the functions and rename the variables, is inviting a lawsuit. A general defense to a copyright lawsuit is to document that you have never viewed the copyrighted work, e.g. by having one person/team document the function of the code and having another person/team implement the function using that documentation (a.k.a. "clean-room reverse-engineering"). In this case, it would be up to the courts, but having a piece of copyrighted code reproduced verbatim in your project without a license is not a good look, and I highly doubt usage of Copilot would be an affirmative defense.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  If you look at NEC v Intel we get an affirmation that verbatim similarity is often a sign that it was the only way to implement a given function. And in Sony v Connectix we get a ruling that even non-clean room implementations are not in violation if there is no way to reverse engineer otherwise.

by Kiro 4y ago

bayindirh 4y ago

Yes. When you write the same algorithm, even with a different style, it's a direct derivation of the code at hand. Derivative works of GPL licensed code are still GPL licensed. Moreover, Copilot doesn't always derive code, but provides the code as-is, reproducing it comment by comment [0], and with a wrong license while at that. [0]: https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309 https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309

williamcotton 4y ago
Only the expressive elements of an algorithm fall under copyright. Generally speaking math equations and algorithms can’t be restricted by copyright. Expressive, non-technical comments in code are most definitely protected by copyright.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  So, I can use a code from a leaked source code as I wish, and duplicate all the algorithms and methods for achieving something. Nice. Well, we're so naive for making clean room development for so long, and writing EULA's with sentences all in caps stating that this is a trade secret and you can't do anything with it. BTW, I want to reiterate that I'm trying to keep things open, not closed. So I'm not trying to copyright and protect it from being modified. This is what GPL is actually. So, the research is already there, in the form of a paper. You can re-implement that. But, my implementation is under GPLv3. So I'm not copyrighting/patenting the algorithm. It's certain expression I've implemented as a code, and opened under GPL. As a result, if you derive anything from my implementation, that's GPL too. If you want that algorithm, it's on paper. Go implement that. I don't care.

plorkyeran 4y ago

Yes, actually. That's why clean-room design is a thing.

tadfisher 4y ago

Note that the controlling framework here is copyright law, hence the term "copyright license". A lawyer will tell you that reimplementing code you have read, even if you change around the functions and rename the variables, is inviting a lawsuit. A general defense to a copyright lawsuit is to document that you have never viewed the copyrighted work, e.g. by having one person/team document the function of the code and having another person/team implement the function using that documentation (a.k.a. "clean-room reverse-engineering"). In this case, it would be up to the courts, but having a piece of copyrighted code reproduced verbatim in your project without a license is not a good look, and I highly doubt usage of Copilot would be an affirmative defense.

williamcotton 4y ago
If you look at NEC v Intel we get an affirmation that verbatim similarity is often a sign that it was the only way to implement a given function. And in Sony v Connectix we get a ruling that even non-clean room implementations are not in violation if there is no way to reverse engineer otherwise.