3 ms·

Or just don't use Github.

TAForObvReasons 4y ago
Not using Github doesn't stop others from posting your code on Github with incorrect licenses. It becomes a massive game of whack-a-repo
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Or just don't give a hoot. Takes practice, but it's a skill that can be mastered like any other.
  - olliej 4y ago
    That’s why we should simply accept that companies don’t have to publish source when they include gpl code, right?
  - fsloth 4y ago
    This may be an acceptable approach if the code is not produced in a professional context and not of professional quality. One of the keystones of open source is professionals have had an ecosystem where they can deliver value to an open forum but still have at least a semblance of control how their contribution is used via various licenses they can select.
    - CamperBob2 4y ago
      Sounds a lot like Oracle's justification for owning the Java API ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_.... ) in which de minimis things like variable and structure declarations were used by Oracle to justify a copyright-maximal approach that would have utterly laid waste to open source development. The code in question is not something that anyone needs to own. Rather, it's what anyone would write, faced with the same problem. It's stupid to make humans do a robot's job in the name of preserving meaningless "IP rights".
Vetch 4y ago
This scenario is specific to neither github nor copilot. It will always happen for any combination of a code generating LLM trained on all publicly available code.
- olliej 4y ago
  Correct. All of those “models” are simply violating copyright - the post alone demonstrates that the model itself contains that code, so the entire model is also covered by that license. I would put money on it also containing gpl3 code, which I suspect means that the model itself is probably also required to be public under the terms of gpl3
happymellon 4y ago
That doesn't help when someone else mirrors your code to GitHub.
- nightski 4y ago
  But that's not guaranteed to happen and it still is a step forward.
  - happymellon 4y ago
    Indeed, not using GitHub is a step in the right direction. What I am referring to is GitHub claiming that you are using their resources so they can break your license, when in fact you are not using their resources so they never made that agreement with you.

Not using Github doesn't stop others from posting your code on Github with incorrect licenses. It becomes a massive game of whack-a-repo

CamperBob2 4y ago
Or just don't give a hoot. Takes practice, but it's a skill that can be mastered like any other.
- olliej 4y ago
  That’s why we should simply accept that companies don’t have to publish source when they include gpl code, right?
- fsloth 4y ago
  This may be an acceptable approach if the code is not produced in a professional context and not of professional quality. One of the keystones of open source is professionals have had an ecosystem where they can deliver value to an open forum but still have at least a semblance of control how their contribution is used via various licenses they can select.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    Sounds a lot like Oracle's justification for owning the Java API ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_.... ) in which de minimis things like variable and structure declarations were used by Oracle to justify a copyright-maximal approach that would have utterly laid waste to open source development. The code in question is not something that anyone needs to own. Rather, it's what anyone would write, faced with the same problem. It's stupid to make humans do a robot's job in the name of preserving meaningless "IP rights".

Vetch 4y ago

This scenario is specific to neither github nor copilot. It will always happen for any combination of a code generating LLM trained on all publicly available code.

olliej 4y ago
Correct. All of those “models” are simply violating copyright - the post alone demonstrates that the model itself contains that code, so the entire model is also covered by that license. I would put money on it also containing gpl3 code, which I suspect means that the model itself is probably also required to be public under the terms of gpl3

happymellon 4y ago

That doesn't help when someone else mirrors your code to GitHub.

nightski 4y ago
But that's not guaranteed to happen and it still is a step forward.
- happymellon 4y ago
  Indeed, not using GitHub is a step in the right direction. What I am referring to is GitHub claiming that you are using their resources so they can break your license, when in fact you are not using their resources so they never made that agreement with you.