6 ms·

> 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 di

> 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...
- CaptArmchair 4y ago
  > How can it properly attribute it? There it is. If you have to ask that question, it follows that co-pilot isn't the right tool for developers to use in the first place. Would you - or your employer - want to risk a lawsuit because you inadvertently copied code that's actually released under a license with particular terms of use? "Oh, my due diligence went as far as trusting Microsoft and their product for making sure any and all rights where cleared before their tool provided me code." is a meager excuse in a court case when the original author of said code decides to sue you. > Little bits of code should not be copyrightable in the first place. I can't copyright a single sentence fragment. True. You can't copyright single fact statements. But clearly, there are cases where co-pilot suggests way more then that. It's also true that most people don't really consider how stringent copyright laws really are until they are affected by the consequences of their actions (fines, suits, cease & desist,...). > it's very rare to use a big chunk of code from copilot without changes That's a tentative claim.
  - Kiro 4y ago
    > Would you - or your employer - want to risk a lawsuit because you inadvertently copied code that's actually released under a license with particular terms of use? Copilot doesn't do this unless you bait it with very obvious prompts. But to answer your question: yes, never worked at a company that actually cares about licenses. It's a mirage. No-one ever gets sued. If your code is out there it will be used and abused and everyone gets away with it.
    - CaptArmchair 4y ago
      > No-one ever gets sued. ... Yet.
  - eloff 4y ago
    > Would you - or your employer - want to risk a lawsuit because you inadvertently copied code that's actually released under a license with particular terms of use? Yes. In actuality none of the code I've seen out of copilot is likely to be an issue. This is a mostly theoretical problem that is even less likely to be litigated. If you can't use copliot at work because of this, your lawyers have too much say inside the company, or management is too risk averse. Also fuck copyright law. It's messed up. I'm not saying get rid of copyrights, but it needs a serious overhaul that is not getting.
tnel77 4y ago
Just a nitpick: >True. And those are license violations as well. But we aren't discussing those. It feels like we are now talking about it since they choose to bring it up.
- CaptArmchair 4y ago
  Yeah, it's a fallacy called "changing the goalposts". It's bringing up an argument that, although true in and of itself, is not relevant to the subject of the ongoing debate.

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...

CaptArmchair 4y ago
> How can it properly attribute it? There it is. If you have to ask that question, it follows that co-pilot isn't the right tool for developers to use in the first place. Would you - or your employer - want to risk a lawsuit because you inadvertently copied code that's actually released under a license with particular terms of use? "Oh, my due diligence went as far as trusting Microsoft and their product for making sure any and all rights where cleared before their tool provided me code." is a meager excuse in a court case when the original author of said code decides to sue you. > Little bits of code should not be copyrightable in the first place. I can't copyright a single sentence fragment. True. You can't copyright single fact statements. But clearly, there are cases where co-pilot suggests way more then that. It's also true that most people don't really consider how stringent copyright laws really are until they are affected by the consequences of their actions (fines, suits, cease & desist,...). > it's very rare to use a big chunk of code from copilot without changes That's a tentative claim.
- Kiro 4y ago
  > Would you - or your employer - want to risk a lawsuit because you inadvertently copied code that's actually released under a license with particular terms of use? Copilot doesn't do this unless you bait it with very obvious prompts. But to answer your question: yes, never worked at a company that actually cares about licenses. It's a mirage. No-one ever gets sued. If your code is out there it will be used and abused and everyone gets away with it.
  - CaptArmchair 4y ago
    > No-one ever gets sued. ... Yet.
- eloff 4y ago
  > Would you - or your employer - want to risk a lawsuit because you inadvertently copied code that's actually released under a license with particular terms of use? Yes. In actuality none of the code I've seen out of copilot is likely to be an issue. This is a mostly theoretical problem that is even less likely to be litigated. If you can't use copliot at work because of this, your lawyers have too much say inside the company, or management is too risk averse. Also fuck copyright law. It's messed up. I'm not saying get rid of copyrights, but it needs a serious overhaul that is not getting.

tnel77 4y ago

Just a nitpick: >True. And those are license violations as well. But we aren't discussing those. It feels like we are now talking about it since they choose to bring it up.

CaptArmchair 4y ago
Yeah, it's a fallacy called "changing the goalposts". It's bringing up an argument that, although true in and of itself, is not relevant to the subject of the ongoing debate.