4 ms·

Related question: are there any alternatives which respect licenses like GPL? If I simply copy-paste code from a GPL project myself, I'm normally expected to pr

Related question: are there any alternatives which respect licenses like GPL? If I simply copy-paste code from a GPL project myself, I'm normally expected to preserve the license. It should be possible to indicate what license you're using so that you only get GPL snippets when they are to be included in a GPL project. Otherwise, you're violating the intent of the original authors and are on shaky ground legally.

goodpoint 4y ago
It's not about GPL. Copilot is violating MIT and many other licenses due to the attribution clause.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  Currently most of the ML field is working on an assumption (untested in courts, but also not disputed in courts) that a trained model is not considered a derivative work (according to the copyright law definitions, no matter what colloquial understanding of "derivative" implies) of its source data. There also is a serious argument that the model is uncopyrightable at all (since any noncreative transformation of data is not copyrightable, and there is solid precedent stating that it is absolutely irrelevant how much effort and money the transformation took), in which case the modal simply can't be a derivative work. If that assumption holds (we won't know for sure until some precedent multiple years down the line) then there is no violation of the copyright law even if they refuse the license. In essence, I do not think that it is appropriate to say that "Copilot is violating licenses" because it's an open legal question whether that act is a violation or fully within their rights to do so, it is undecided at the moment, and there will be an answer to that question only after we get either a relevant precedent ruling or new legislation, both of which will take quite some time.
- primax 4y ago
  Has there been an actual recorded case of licence violation?
- kastagg 4y ago
  Did you mean "it's not only about GPL"? I said "licenses like GPL"
BrandonJung 4y ago
Yes we at Tabnine have been at this for 7+ years and we believe that this is the current best solution. Only train on fully permissive code and then specialize those models privately for each team/org/org.

goodpoint 4y ago

It's not about GPL. Copilot is violating MIT and many other licenses due to the attribution clause.

PeterisP 4y ago
Currently most of the ML field is working on an assumption (untested in courts, but also not disputed in courts) that a trained model is not considered a derivative work (according to the copyright law definitions, no matter what colloquial understanding of "derivative" implies) of its source data. There also is a serious argument that the model is uncopyrightable at all (since any noncreative transformation of data is not copyrightable, and there is solid precedent stating that it is absolutely irrelevant how much effort and money the transformation took), in which case the modal simply can't be a derivative work. If that assumption holds (we won't know for sure until some precedent multiple years down the line) then there is no violation of the copyright law even if they refuse the license. In essence, I do not think that it is appropriate to say that "Copilot is violating licenses" because it's an open legal question whether that act is a violation or fully within their rights to do so, it is undecided at the moment, and there will be an answer to that question only after we get either a relevant precedent ruling or new legislation, both of which will take quite some time.
primax 4y ago
Has there been an actual recorded case of licence violation?
kastagg 4y ago
Did you mean "it's not only about GPL"? I said "licenses like GPL"

BrandonJung 4y ago

Yes we at Tabnine have been at this for 7+ years and we believe that this is the current best solution. Only train on fully permissive code and then specialize those models privately for each team/org/org.