6 ms·

Just for some context, Tim Davis is both the author of SuiteSparse (library in question), and one of the main researchers behind the algorithms used in SuiteSpa

Just for some context, Tim Davis is both the author of SuiteSparse (library in question), and one of the main researchers behind the algorithms used in SuiteSparse. It’s common for academics working in this field to release their software open source instead of licensing it, both as a service to the public and in order to secure support. Davis is an incredibly successful academic whose software is used absolutely ubiquitously. This approach has worked for him: he has had many industrial partnerships and support from the government. Attribution here means supporting science. If you think that it isn’t a big deal that Microsoft isn’t properly attributing him, what you’re saying is that you think it’s OK for Microsoft to be subsidized by tax payer (and private) dollars, since that’s what’s happening here. The code is clearly identical, with the exception of a few tiny transformations which leave the functionality unchanged. Arguing otherwise is being disingenuous.

baby 4y ago
This kind of comment is going to poorly age
Kiro 4y ago
His code is already used in thousands of repos without proper attribution. Isn't that worse? If you want to steal his code you can just copypaste it. No need for a convoluted prompt baiting Copilot into reproducing it.
- sfpotter 4y ago
  Yup, and I bet a lot of those repos are on GitHub. Which is owned by Microsoft. And which were then fed into Copilot. It’s almost like Microsoft is capable of not only trawling through huge amounts of code, but accurately identifying Tim Davis’s code. Would be pretty crazy if they used these tools to identify instances of copyright/left infringement and help its users and the open source and scientific communities instead of making it clear that they do not want to do those things.
  - w0m 4y ago
    can you imagine the absolute shitstorm/nightmare if MS automated the equivalent of DMCA takedowns across public github repos? The internet would explode i think.. lol.
- CaptArmchair 4y ago
  > His code is already used in thousands of repos without proper attribution. Isn't that worse? True. And those are license violations as well. But we aren't discussing those. We are discussing an online service created by a large corporation that automatically hands millions of developers code directly in their IDE's which was entirely stripped from its license. There's no informing of consent or terms of use whatsoever. > If you want to steal his code you can just copypaste it When you copy the code from his GitHub repo, a reference to the applicable license is directly mentioned in the files you're copying from. "stealing" in that regard would mean: willfully ignoring the license and its terms. You can't deny you weren't informed about the existence of the license. It's an integral part of the code. As opposed to o-pilot which presents you code, giving you the impression that you can just plug it into your own projects, without informing you about any applicable terms of use e.g. attribution. Put differently, if you're a professional and you copy/paste entire files from some random GitHub repo that doesn't contain any licensing or copyright information, well, you're creating a legal liability for yourself, your employer and anyone using that code through your work. > No need for a convoluted prompt baiting Copilot into reproducing it. In an utopian world, everyone would just be able to freely use whatever code is available on the Internet without having to ask for anyone's consent. We don't live in such a world. The reality is one where intellectual property rights and court cases are a thing.
  - eloff 4y ago
    How can it properly attribute it? The code is being "copied" by copliot from other repos that didn't properly attribute it. This is no different than if you found one of those repos and copied it yourself. Copilot is magnifying a problem that was already there. It, or any human doing the same, is not doing anything morally wrong. There's no way for it or any human to know that code is copyrighted. Unfortunately intent is not a requirement for copyright infringement, which is just bat shit insane. [1] This is really much ado about nothing. Nobody baits copliot into reproducing existing chunks of code, and it's very rare to use a big chunk of code from copilot without changes. I've been using it for months and I can't recall a single instance of doing that. Little bits of code should not be copyrightable in the first place. I can't copyright a single sentence fragment. All this fuss is way overblown. [1] https://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2013/12/innocent-infringement-intent-and-copyright-law/ https://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2013/12/innocen...
tokai 4y ago
>release their software open source instead of licensing What do you mean? Open source is not just source available.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  Open Source Science Software is generally licensed under MIT or GPL to make the source available, source code inheritable, mark the artifact as a deliverable, and make code reviewable and encourage collaboration. So the funding bodies can support you financially over the code you released, and other users can support you with improvements to make code more valuable and usable. This is beyond source available, this how Free Software is designed and dreamed to work in practice.
  - frutiger 4y ago
    Yes but GGP said “instead of licensing”.
    - bayindirh 4y ago
      I read it as "licensing in a proprietary way", or "licensing with strict copyright terms". Which is also present in some research software. You buy the source, but can't share/distribute. Only compile, customize and use.
      - sfpotter 4y ago
        This is the correct interpretation. Apologies for any confusion.
  - tokai 4y ago
    I mean this in the best way, but your comment doesn't make any sense. I'm asking sfpotter what he means by releasing something OS without using licensing. I didn't ask for an overview of free software.
    - 4y ago
tnel77 4y ago
It’s always bothered me when people end their argument with something along the lines of “disagreeing with me makes you bad.” It immediately shuts down opposing thought without even giving someone a chance.
- sfpotter 4y ago
  If you're referring to my last sentence, "Arguing otherwise is being disingenuous", two things: 1) People are disingenuous all the time, intentionally and otherwise. Doesn't necessarily mean that they are "bad". The reality is that people must frequently act cynically for the purposes of self-preservation. 2) With this sentence, I am only referring to the question of whether or not the code from co-pilot posted by Tim Davis "is" the original code. In my view, the transformations present in the code are on the level of what clang-format is capable of. I would argue that if you run code through clang-format, it is functionally "the same" as the original. I believe that this is probably obvious to nearly all experienced programmers, hence my point that I think that if someone is arguing to the contrary, they are being disingenuous. For people with skin in the game (like Graveley, quoted in the article), I would argue that they are being disingenuous in order to cover their asses. For people here on HN, I would argue that they are doing so out of naivety. Obviously, you're free to disagree with any of this, and anything in my original post. If you feel like I am accusing you of being "bad", that is not my intention.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  If someone says sexual relations with a 5 year old is bad and if you disagree you're bad, does that also bother you?
  - tnel77 4y ago
    I think you know the answer to that. Perhaps I meant a normal debate and not something horrific and obvious.
jmartrican 4y ago
highways r also funded by tax dollars. so Microsoft can't use the highways either?

baby 4y ago

This kind of comment is going to poorly age

Kiro 4y ago

His code is already used in thousands of repos without proper attribution. Isn't that worse? If you want to steal his code you can just copypaste it. No need for a convoluted prompt baiting Copilot into reproducing it.

sfpotter 4y ago
Yup, and I bet a lot of those repos are on GitHub. Which is owned by Microsoft. And which were then fed into Copilot. It’s almost like Microsoft is capable of not only trawling through huge amounts of code, but accurately identifying Tim Davis’s code. Would be pretty crazy if they used these tools to identify instances of copyright/left infringement and help its users and the open source and scientific communities instead of making it clear that they do not want to do those things.
- w0m 4y ago
  can you imagine the absolute shitstorm/nightmare if MS automated the equivalent of DMCA takedowns across public github repos? The internet would explode i think.. lol.
CaptArmchair 4y ago
> His code is already used in thousands of repos without proper attribution. Isn't that worse? True. And those are license violations as well. But we aren't discussing those. We are discussing an online service created by a large corporation that automatically hands millions of developers code directly in their IDE's which was entirely stripped from its license. There's no informing of consent or terms of use whatsoever. > If you want to steal his code you can just copypaste it When you copy the code from his GitHub repo, a reference to the applicable license is directly mentioned in the files you're copying from. "stealing" in that regard would mean: willfully ignoring the license and its terms. You can't deny you weren't informed about the existence of the license. It's an integral part of the code. As opposed to o-pilot which presents you code, giving you the impression that you can just plug it into your own projects, without informing you about any applicable terms of use e.g. attribution. Put differently, if you're a professional and you copy/paste entire files from some random GitHub repo that doesn't contain any licensing or copyright information, well, you're creating a legal liability for yourself, your employer and anyone using that code through your work. > No need for a convoluted prompt baiting Copilot into reproducing it. In an utopian world, everyone would just be able to freely use whatever code is available on the Internet without having to ask for anyone's consent. We don't live in such a world. The reality is one where intellectual property rights and court cases are a thing.
- eloff 4y ago
  How can it properly attribute it? The code is being "copied" by copliot from other repos that didn't properly attribute it. This is no different than if you found one of those repos and copied it yourself. Copilot is magnifying a problem that was already there. It, or any human doing the same, is not doing anything morally wrong. There's no way for it or any human to know that code is copyrighted. Unfortunately intent is not a requirement for copyright infringement, which is just bat shit insane. [1] This is really much ado about nothing. Nobody baits copliot into reproducing existing chunks of code, and it's very rare to use a big chunk of code from copilot without changes. I've been using it for months and I can't recall a single instance of doing that. Little bits of code should not be copyrightable in the first place. I can't copyright a single sentence fragment. All this fuss is way overblown. [1] https://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2013/12/innocent-infringement-intent-and-copyright-law/ https://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2013/12/innocen...

tokai 4y ago

>release their software open source instead of licensing What do you mean? Open source is not just source available.

bayindirh 4y ago
Open Source Science Software is generally licensed under MIT or GPL to make the source available, source code inheritable, mark the artifact as a deliverable, and make code reviewable and encourage collaboration. So the funding bodies can support you financially over the code you released, and other users can support you with improvements to make code more valuable and usable. This is beyond source available, this how Free Software is designed and dreamed to work in practice.
- frutiger 4y ago
  Yes but GGP said “instead of licensing”.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    I read it as "licensing in a proprietary way", or "licensing with strict copyright terms". Which is also present in some research software. You buy the source, but can't share/distribute. Only compile, customize and use.
    - sfpotter 4y ago
      This is the correct interpretation. Apologies for any confusion.
- tokai 4y ago
  I mean this in the best way, but your comment doesn't make any sense. I'm asking sfpotter what he means by releasing something OS without using licensing. I didn't ask for an overview of free software.
  - 4y ago

tnel77 4y ago

It’s always bothered me when people end their argument with something along the lines of “disagreeing with me makes you bad.” It immediately shuts down opposing thought without even giving someone a chance.

sfpotter 4y ago
If you're referring to my last sentence, "Arguing otherwise is being disingenuous", two things: 1) People are disingenuous all the time, intentionally and otherwise. Doesn't necessarily mean that they are "bad". The reality is that people must frequently act cynically for the purposes of self-preservation. 2) With this sentence, I am only referring to the question of whether or not the code from co-pilot posted by Tim Davis "is" the original code. In my view, the transformations present in the code are on the level of what clang-format is capable of. I would argue that if you run code through clang-format, it is functionally "the same" as the original. I believe that this is probably obvious to nearly all experienced programmers, hence my point that I think that if someone is arguing to the contrary, they are being disingenuous. For people with skin in the game (like Graveley, quoted in the article), I would argue that they are being disingenuous in order to cover their asses. For people here on HN, I would argue that they are doing so out of naivety. Obviously, you're free to disagree with any of this, and anything in my original post. If you feel like I am accusing you of being "bad", that is not my intention.
P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
If someone says sexual relations with a 5 year old is bad and if you disagree you're bad, does that also bother you?
- tnel77 4y ago
  I think you know the answer to that. Perhaps I meant a normal debate and not something horrific and obvious.

jmartrican 4y ago

highways r also funded by tax dollars. so Microsoft can't use the highways either?