4 ms·

I think it's important to realize the exact implications here: - MS absolutely has the authority to copy, use, and even train their models on your GPL-license

by bloppe 4y ago

I think it's important to realize the exact implications here: - MS absolutely has the authority to copy, use, and even train their models on your GPL-license code, because you agreed to let them do that when you signed their EULA when you decided to host your code on GitHub. - This authority does not extend to CoPilot users, who cannot republish your GPL-licensed code without respecting the license. But remember that people have always had the ability (not authority) to copy and use open source code in violation of the license. This simply makes it embarrassingly easy for a person to do so unknowingly (although, legally, this would probably be considered negligence, not ignorance). IANAL but I wonder if the extreme facilitation of copyright infringement here could be considered gross negligence on the part of MS, as they're almost entrapping their own customers in a minefield of copyright concerns. Can't wait to find out. The logical next step in this arms race is for the GPL camp to build tools to automatically search for copyright infringement in large codebases. Copyright holders could set up hotlines for insiders to blow the whistle on infringement in exchange for compensation, since AFAICT all litigation precedent in the US has so far resulted in settlement.

moolcool 4y ago
> MS absolutely has the authority to copy, use, and even train their models on your GPL-license code, because you agreed to let them do that when you signed their EULA when you decided to host your code on GitHub. What about GPL code which you don't own, but post to Github, Like the gcc mirror repo?
- naikrovek 4y ago
  read the terms of service. you must have the right to publish the code you put on github.com, and by publishing to github.com, you assert that you have the rights to do so. you also grant GitHub the right to show that code to others, no matter what license your code is licensed under. why does no one read the terms of service or license agreements? these questions are answered there and this "copilot is stealing" stuff won't even make it to court.
  - broodbucket 4y ago
    Even if it is true that the ToS that noone reads allows GitHub to blatantly violate the license of your code that anyone could choose to upload to GitHub without the copyright holder's consent, people are going to do it anyway en masse, and that code is going to get eaten by Copilot. Even if copyright holders are constantly playing the game of reporting public repos to GitHub to remove it's not going to be enough. >this "copilot is stealing" stuff won't even make it to court IANAL but I am heavily skeptical of your confidence here.
    - naikrovek 4y ago
      > allows GitHub to blatantly violate the license of your code it doesn't allow GitHub to violate any license; it explicitly grants GitHub an additional license on top of the license you choose for your code. the only way to revoke this license grant to GitHub is to remove your code from github.com. > IANAL but I am heavily skeptical of your confidence here. ok. it's all spelled out in the terms of use. I'll ask you this, though; who do you think Terms of Usage/Service documents are intended to protect?
      - rossjudson 4y ago
        Please. If someone uploads a pirate copy of a movie to GitHub, GitHub doesn't get an additional license to anything, on top of whatever license the uploader chose. Maybe GitHub is saying it's not their fault and that they were misinformed. Those types of arguments usually don't get all that far with copyright violations.
        naikrovek 4y ago
        if someone uploads a pirated movie to github, github won’t get the license if it goes to court, but they won’t get in trouble for the assumption that they had the license, either. the uploader had both pirated and committed wire fraud as gar as the github terms of service agreement is concerned. either way, github is absolved. if a DMCA claim is filed on the movie, then that gets quarantined and removed from the list of things that they can show their users. the user that uploads stuff to github.com attests that they have the right to upload it. by being uploaded, github can assume that it has the rights it asks of users unless and until they are told that they do not have those rights. so, github are covered until they are formally told that they are not, at which point they must restrict access to that data to themselves and others, which they regularly do. these types of arguments do indeed work very well if github reacts promptly when they are told that they are using rights they do not have. github is not primarily used for piracy, like thepiratebay, and thus has a valid claim that they were lied to by a user. this is when the user who uploaded gets involved legally if the true copyright holder chooses to involve them. you being mad at github, microsoft, or me doesn’t make any of us wrong.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
naikrovek 4y ago
those license tools already exist. they're not free, though, so they are mostly invisible and unknown to GPL types.
MrStonedOne 4y ago
int_19h 4y ago
Ironically, such tools already exist, and most (all?) large software companies use them routinely on all the code that they ship.

by bloppe 4y ago

moolcool 4y ago

> MS absolutely has the authority to copy, use, and even train their models on your GPL-license code, because you agreed to let them do that when you signed their EULA when you decided to host your code on GitHub. What about GPL code which you don't own, but post to Github, Like the gcc mirror repo?

naikrovek 4y ago
read the terms of service. you must have the right to publish the code you put on github.com, and by publishing to github.com, you assert that you have the rights to do so. you also grant GitHub the right to show that code to others, no matter what license your code is licensed under. why does no one read the terms of service or license agreements? these questions are answered there and this "copilot is stealing" stuff won't even make it to court.
- broodbucket 4y ago
  Even if it is true that the ToS that noone reads allows GitHub to blatantly violate the license of your code that anyone could choose to upload to GitHub without the copyright holder's consent, people are going to do it anyway en masse, and that code is going to get eaten by Copilot. Even if copyright holders are constantly playing the game of reporting public repos to GitHub to remove it's not going to be enough. >this "copilot is stealing" stuff won't even make it to court IANAL but I am heavily skeptical of your confidence here.
  - naikrovek 4y ago
    > allows GitHub to blatantly violate the license of your code it doesn't allow GitHub to violate any license; it explicitly grants GitHub an additional license on top of the license you choose for your code. the only way to revoke this license grant to GitHub is to remove your code from github.com. > IANAL but I am heavily skeptical of your confidence here. ok. it's all spelled out in the terms of use. I'll ask you this, though; who do you think Terms of Usage/Service documents are intended to protect?
    - rossjudson 4y ago
      Please. If someone uploads a pirate copy of a movie to GitHub, GitHub doesn't get an additional license to anything, on top of whatever license the uploader chose. Maybe GitHub is saying it's not their fault and that they were misinformed. Those types of arguments usually don't get all that far with copyright violations.
      - naikrovek 4y ago
        if someone uploads a pirated movie to github, github won’t get the license if it goes to court, but they won’t get in trouble for the assumption that they had the license, either. the uploader had both pirated and committed wire fraud as gar as the github terms of service agreement is concerned. either way, github is absolved. if a DMCA claim is filed on the movie, then that gets quarantined and removed from the list of things that they can show their users. the user that uploads stuff to github.com attests that they have the right to upload it. by being uploaded, github can assume that it has the rights it asks of users unless and until they are told that they do not have those rights. so, github are covered until they are formally told that they are not, at which point they must restrict access to that data to themselves and others, which they regularly do. these types of arguments do indeed work very well if github reacts promptly when they are told that they are using rights they do not have. github is not primarily used for piracy, like thepiratebay, and thus has a valid claim that they were lied to by a user. this is when the user who uploaded gets involved legally if the true copyright holder chooses to involve them. you being mad at github, microsoft, or me doesn’t make any of us wrong.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

naikrovek 4y ago

those license tools already exist. they're not free, though, so they are mostly invisible and unknown to GPL types.

MrStonedOne 4y ago

int_19h 4y ago

Ironically, such tools already exist, and most (all?) large software companies use them routinely on all the code that they ship.