8 ms·

I'll tell you right now, having my GPL-licensed code stolen has a pretty negative impact on my happiness.

by NoraCodes 4y ago

JamesBarney 4y ago
What snippets were stolen from your code and how has it affected your happiness?
bastardoperator 4y ago
Maybe you should switch to the Unlicense. I'm so much happier not giving a damn or punishing my users with pettiness.
- NoraCodes 4y ago
  Licenses don't matter when Microsoft decides that AI training is fair use.
  - bastardoperator 4y ago
    I'll take "I didn't read the GitHub TOS" for 500 Alex.
    - throwaway1851 4y ago
      Well not everyone is in contractual privity with GitHub — like the poster a few up whose code was included in someone else’s repo. GitHub’s TOS have no effect in that circumstance.
elcomet 4y ago
What if I read your code? Now I have memory of it in my brain and it will influence my next projects. Is it stealing?
- xmcqdpt2 4y ago
  Actually it could be! If you read GPL code and remember it well, then write a near exact copy of it into your proprietary software project, that's a violation of the GPL.
sergnio 4y ago
"The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so." How is GHC breaking this license?
- blowski 4y ago
  Say I drew a lovely picture and hung it outside my house for passers by to look at. I say “sure you can take a copy, no problem”, they then sell a billion prints, and don’t credit me at all. Legally, not stealing. Ethically? I’d call that stealing.
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    Legally that actually is stealing. They must have documented reproduction rights. Misunderstanding a verbal comment will not fly in a court.
  - tducasse 4y ago
    Except that's not exactly what they are doing, is it? Following on your example, it'd be like selling the advice of someone who has seen a lot of these pictures passing by windows, with a very good memory and understanding of pictures. Github Copilot is not spitting out code verbatim, it's learning what code is, what shape it usually has, and trying to retrofit your own code onto the shape it thinks code should have. It's not like it's doing a query like `SELECT * FROM COPIED_CODE WHERE CODE STARTS_WITH "def my_func("`.
- NoraCodes 4y ago
  GPL requires that derivative works - which, I argue, Copilot is - also be distributed under the GPL. Microsoft disagrees with my interpretation, and wins by default because I can't afford to sue them.
- mtlynch 4y ago
  The GPL has requirements, and Copilot fails to adhere to those requirements. Here's an important one: >You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
baby 4y ago
"wants to participate in and use open source, but is not happy when others use their code"
- jacooper 4y ago
  *Use their code without complying with the license
  - nojito 4y ago
    Copilot is transformative work.
    - throwaway1851 4y ago
      Objection, legal conclusion.
  - baby 4y ago
    I couldn't care less about whatever restrictive license people choose and decide to call open source
    - jacooper 4y ago
      Well then dont use their code you have to legally follow the codes license.
tducasse 4y ago
I have no opinion on whether there's infrigement or not, as I am not a lawyer, but I found the argument that the terms of use specify that you allow them to analyze your code pretty convincing: > We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time. This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Copilot seems to go further than all that. It can suggest verbatim, nontrivial, copyrighted work with no means of attribution. And the sources are so broad no human alive could say with certainty any given output is not infringing, unless it's so trivial it cannot be copyrighted.
  - tducasse 4y ago
    I've always had trouble understanding intellectual property when it comes to code, because if I read open source code, remember everything, and write my own version (even if slightly different) 10 years later, I am not 100% sure whether it's copyright infrigement or not. I see it as something akin to a painter studying someone else's work, then reproducing some of the techniques invented by the original artist... except that their techniques didn't have a license I guess? I think I am not equipped to fully understand the legal boundaries between inspiration and theft, and I think most programmers are in the same situation.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      Painter analogy falls down when you consider Copilot can output verbatim chunks. So more like a photo of a painting or a stroke-for-stroke copy, even if portions changed or only parts taken. Now if changes are so significant it becomes impossible to recognize the reference then that could be legit. Though based on how Copilot works I don't think that can be assumed, or even proven. When I studied art the teachers usually taught us to begin with our own original photograph, ideally without trademarked items, for reference. And even in literature or journalism one must quote sources, even if paraphrased. I was taught to put down any inspiring work and only begin my own work after taking a break, to reduce the likelihood of unintentionally copying the original.
asdff 4y ago
I wonder if you could just ruin these systems by having some bots constantly upload bugged code into github
- jrockway 4y ago
  I think my biggest worry about AI is that we hit a big wall right about now because training data is now contaminated with AI outputs. That's why OpenAI puts watermarks on images, I'm guessing, but Stable Diffusion doesn't, and the free one is probably going to get a lot more usage than the paid-for one. But, maybe not, because humans liked the outputs enough to share them and put them on the Internet, so maybe they don't have much of an effect quite yet.
  - asdff 4y ago
    I think the training limits other applications like self driving cars a lot too. Training is frequently done in contrived scenarios. Now, imagine if GM or Ford put sensors and telemetry for future self driving car use on their models decades ago. You'd have practically every road mapped with ten thousand observations a piece by now. It wasn't for lack of forsight to not collect these data, it was really for lack of profit. Sensors and other data collecting systems are not new technology. Neither is machine learning, its also decades old. The only thing different these days is that the compute required to run these models on these data has gotten cheaper, but you could have been collecting data the whole time with anticipation of cheap compute to run these models in the future. Then you'd have a leg up on everyone in the business with your massive dataset of decades of real world, not test tracks and other such situations utilizing an employed driver in all likelihood.

I'll tell you right now, having my GPL-licensed code stolen has a pretty negative impact on my happiness.

JamesBarney 4y ago

What snippets were stolen from your code and how has it affected your happiness?

bastardoperator 4y ago

Maybe you should switch to the Unlicense. I'm so much happier not giving a damn or punishing my users with pettiness.

NoraCodes 4y ago
Licenses don't matter when Microsoft decides that AI training is fair use.
- bastardoperator 4y ago
  I'll take "I didn't read the GitHub TOS" for 500 Alex.
  - throwaway1851 4y ago
    Well not everyone is in contractual privity with GitHub — like the poster a few up whose code was included in someone else’s repo. GitHub’s TOS have no effect in that circumstance.

elcomet 4y ago

What if I read your code? Now I have memory of it in my brain and it will influence my next projects. Is it stealing?

xmcqdpt2 4y ago
Actually it could be! If you read GPL code and remember it well, then write a near exact copy of it into your proprietary software project, that's a violation of the GPL.

sergnio 4y ago

"The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so." How is GHC breaking this license?

blowski 4y ago
Say I drew a lovely picture and hung it outside my house for passers by to look at. I say “sure you can take a copy, no problem”, they then sell a billion prints, and don’t credit me at all. Legally, not stealing. Ethically? I’d call that stealing.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  Legally that actually is stealing. They must have documented reproduction rights. Misunderstanding a verbal comment will not fly in a court.
- tducasse 4y ago
  Except that's not exactly what they are doing, is it? Following on your example, it'd be like selling the advice of someone who has seen a lot of these pictures passing by windows, with a very good memory and understanding of pictures. Github Copilot is not spitting out code verbatim, it's learning what code is, what shape it usually has, and trying to retrofit your own code onto the shape it thinks code should have. It's not like it's doing a query like `SELECT * FROM COPIED_CODE WHERE CODE STARTS_WITH "def my_func("`.
NoraCodes 4y ago
GPL requires that derivative works - which, I argue, Copilot is - also be distributed under the GPL. Microsoft disagrees with my interpretation, and wins by default because I can't afford to sue them.
mtlynch 4y ago
The GPL has requirements, and Copilot fails to adhere to those requirements. Here's an important one: >You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice

baby 4y ago

"wants to participate in and use open source, but is not happy when others use their code"

jacooper 4y ago
*Use their code without complying with the license
- nojito 4y ago
  Copilot is transformative work.
  - throwaway1851 4y ago
    Objection, legal conclusion.
- baby 4y ago
  I couldn't care less about whatever restrictive license people choose and decide to call open source
  - jacooper 4y ago
    Well then dont use their code you have to legally follow the codes license.

tducasse 4y ago

I have no opinion on whether there's infrigement or not, as I am not a lawyer, but I found the argument that the terms of use specify that you allow them to analyze your code pretty convincing: > We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time. This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Copilot seems to go further than all that. It can suggest verbatim, nontrivial, copyrighted work with no means of attribution. And the sources are so broad no human alive could say with certainty any given output is not infringing, unless it's so trivial it cannot be copyrighted.
- tducasse 4y ago
  I've always had trouble understanding intellectual property when it comes to code, because if I read open source code, remember everything, and write my own version (even if slightly different) 10 years later, I am not 100% sure whether it's copyright infrigement or not. I see it as something akin to a painter studying someone else's work, then reproducing some of the techniques invented by the original artist... except that their techniques didn't have a license I guess? I think I am not equipped to fully understand the legal boundaries between inspiration and theft, and I think most programmers are in the same situation.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    Painter analogy falls down when you consider Copilot can output verbatim chunks. So more like a photo of a painting or a stroke-for-stroke copy, even if portions changed or only parts taken. Now if changes are so significant it becomes impossible to recognize the reference then that could be legit. Though based on how Copilot works I don't think that can be assumed, or even proven. When I studied art the teachers usually taught us to begin with our own original photograph, ideally without trademarked items, for reference. And even in literature or journalism one must quote sources, even if paraphrased. I was taught to put down any inspiring work and only begin my own work after taking a break, to reduce the likelihood of unintentionally copying the original.

asdff 4y ago

I wonder if you could just ruin these systems by having some bots constantly upload bugged code into github

jrockway 4y ago
I think my biggest worry about AI is that we hit a big wall right about now because training data is now contaminated with AI outputs. That's why OpenAI puts watermarks on images, I'm guessing, but Stable Diffusion doesn't, and the free one is probably going to get a lot more usage than the paid-for one. But, maybe not, because humans liked the outputs enough to share them and put them on the Internet, so maybe they don't have much of an effect quite yet.
- asdff 4y ago
  I think the training limits other applications like self driving cars a lot too. Training is frequently done in contrived scenarios. Now, imagine if GM or Ford put sensors and telemetry for future self driving car use on their models decades ago. You'd have practically every road mapped with ten thousand observations a piece by now. It wasn't for lack of forsight to not collect these data, it was really for lack of profit. Sensors and other data collecting systems are not new technology. Neither is machine learning, its also decades old. The only thing different these days is that the compute required to run these models on these data has gotten cheaper, but you could have been collecting data the whole time with anticipation of cheap compute to run these models in the future. Then you'd have a leg up on everyone in the business with your massive dataset of decades of real world, not test tracks and other such situations utilizing an employed driver in all likelihood.