4 ms·

> Even if it is a copyright violation, that is one out of, IDK, millions, maybe billions already of Copilot completions? If you, only once, steal lines of code

by lbotos 4y ago

> Even if it is a copyright violation, that is one out of, IDK, millions, maybe billions already of Copilot completions? If you, only once, steal lines of code that you don't have license to do so and use them to make money, that's the same exact thing. "Trusting the algo" and saying "whoops I'm sorry" doesn't make a strong legal defense. In a company of 1000 programmers, what are the odds that copilot increases the risk of using improperly licensed code because "well because microsoft gave it to us it has to be legit!" And sure, stackoverflow copying is a thing, but they clearly tell you the license by which you can use said code: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ If copilot gives you CC-by-sa code, will it tell you so you can properly credit?

rockemsockem 4y ago
Not all lines of code are made equal under the law. If they were then Oracle would have a copyright on the Java API. Fortunately they do not. So, no. You can in fact "steal" several lines of code and use them to make money and be legally clean as a whistle. It isn't that clear cut.
- SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
  Oracle DOES have a copyright on the Java API. Google's use of it was found to be fair use, but the SCOTUS did rule that it was copyright infringement. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
  - int_19h 4y ago
    The SCOTUS decision in Oracle v. Google didn't rule on API copyrightability. It merely assumed that the code in question is copyrightable, then showed how it's still fair use even if so, thus making the first question irrelevant to the decision. And this is very much intentional; they spell it all out: "Google’s petition for certiorari poses two questions. The first asks whether Java’s API is copyrightable. It asks us to examine two of the statutory provisions just mentioned, one that permits copyrighting computer programs and the other that forbids copyrighting, e.g., “process[es],” “system[s],” and “method[s] of operation.” Google believes that the API’s declaring code and organization fall into these latter categories and are expressly excluded from copyright protection. The second question asks us to determine whether Google’s use of the API was a “fair use.” Google believes that it was. A holding for Google on either question presented would dispense with Oracle’s copyright claims. Given the rapidly changing technological, economic, and business-related circumstances, we believe we should not answer more than is necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. We shall assume, but purely for argument’s sake, that the entire Sun Java API falls within the definition of that which can be copyrighted. We shall ask instead whether Google’s use of part of that API was a “fair use.” Unlike the Federal Circuit, we conclude that it was."
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      The tragic irony here is that the understanding of copyright that those that do not like Copilot put forth would indeed make things like Java's API copyrightable and to the obvious detriment of innovation.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        I don't see how this is related. The question wrt Copilot can be distilled down to "what constitutes a derived work", but there's no doubt that the original source code that Copilot was trained on is copyrightable. Conversely, with Java APIs, there was no doubt that Google's use of them produced a derived work - the question was whether the original is copyrightable and/or whether that is fair use.
  - bdowling 4y ago
    > the SCOTUS did rule that it was copyright infringement. In the US, "[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright." (17 USC 107, Oracle at 14). Whether there is a difference between a finding of no infringement or infringement with no liability is academic. Practically, the copyright on the Java API is commercially worthless because after Oracle anyone may freely copy any and all of it and use it to compete with its creator. Any other software vendor who thinks it has platform "lock in" because its customers built to their API should take notice. (e.g., Amazon AWS).
Aeolun 4y ago
> what are the odds that copilot increases the risk of using improperly licensed code In a company of a thousand programmers there are much easier ways to find improperly licensed code.
shagie 4y ago
> And sure, stackoverflow copying is a thing, but they clearly tell you the license by which you can use said code: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ There are posts under an earlier license which was CC BY-SA 3.0. There are people who don't have accounts anymore or haven't logged in to accept an updated license. Only the changes to the post after the 3.0 to 4.0 in the above case are technically licensed under 4.0 (the original post is still under 3.0). Furthermore, Stack Overflow didn't follow the proper process for updating the license. https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333089/stack-exchange-and-stack-overflow-have-moved-to-cc-by-sa-4-0 https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333089/stack-exchan... For example - https://stackoverflow.com/posts/11574647/timeline https://stackoverflow.com/posts/11574647/timeline Look at the license and the Aug 22 change and consider if that removing "Hope that helps" was a sufficient change to relicense it.

by lbotos 4y ago

rockemsockem 4y ago

Not all lines of code are made equal under the law. If they were then Oracle would have a copyright on the Java API. Fortunately they do not. So, no. You can in fact "steal" several lines of code and use them to make money and be legally clean as a whistle. It isn't that clear cut.

SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
Oracle DOES have a copyright on the Java API. Google's use of it was found to be fair use, but the SCOTUS did rule that it was copyright infringement. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
- int_19h 4y ago
  The SCOTUS decision in Oracle v. Google didn't rule on API copyrightability. It merely assumed that the code in question is copyrightable, then showed how it's still fair use even if so, thus making the first question irrelevant to the decision. And this is very much intentional; they spell it all out: "Google’s petition for certiorari poses two questions. The first asks whether Java’s API is copyrightable. It asks us to examine two of the statutory provisions just mentioned, one that permits copyrighting computer programs and the other that forbids copyrighting, e.g., “process[es],” “system[s],” and “method[s] of operation.” Google believes that the API’s declaring code and organization fall into these latter categories and are expressly excluded from copyright protection. The second question asks us to determine whether Google’s use of the API was a “fair use.” Google believes that it was. A holding for Google on either question presented would dispense with Oracle’s copyright claims. Given the rapidly changing technological, economic, and business-related circumstances, we believe we should not answer more than is necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. We shall assume, but purely for argument’s sake, that the entire Sun Java API falls within the definition of that which can be copyrighted. We shall ask instead whether Google’s use of part of that API was a “fair use.” Unlike the Federal Circuit, we conclude that it was."
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    The tragic irony here is that the understanding of copyright that those that do not like Copilot put forth would indeed make things like Java's API copyrightable and to the obvious detriment of innovation.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      I don't see how this is related. The question wrt Copilot can be distilled down to "what constitutes a derived work", but there's no doubt that the original source code that Copilot was trained on is copyrightable. Conversely, with Java APIs, there was no doubt that Google's use of them produced a derived work - the question was whether the original is copyrightable and/or whether that is fair use.
- bdowling 4y ago
  > the SCOTUS did rule that it was copyright infringement. In the US, "[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright." (17 USC 107, Oracle at 14). Whether there is a difference between a finding of no infringement or infringement with no liability is academic. Practically, the copyright on the Java API is commercially worthless because after Oracle anyone may freely copy any and all of it and use it to compete with its creator. Any other software vendor who thinks it has platform "lock in" because its customers built to their API should take notice. (e.g., Amazon AWS).

Aeolun 4y ago

> what are the odds that copilot increases the risk of using improperly licensed code In a company of a thousand programmers there are much easier ways to find improperly licensed code.

shagie 4y ago

> And sure, stackoverflow copying is a thing, but they clearly tell you the license by which you can use said code: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ There are posts under an earlier license which was CC BY-SA 3.0. There are people who don't have accounts anymore or haven't logged in to accept an updated license. Only the changes to the post after the 3.0 to 4.0 in the above case are technically licensed under 4.0 (the original post is still under 3.0). Furthermore, Stack Overflow didn't follow the proper process for updating the license. https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333089/stack-exchange-and-stack-overflow-have-moved-to-cc-by-sa-4-0 https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333089/stack-exchan... For example - https://stackoverflow.com/posts/11574647/timeline https://stackoverflow.com/posts/11574647/timeline Look at the license and the Aug 22 change and consider if that removing "Hope that helps" was a sufficient change to relicense it.