12 ms·

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 fou

by 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.
mafuy 4y ago
> I can't copyright a single sentence fragment. But almost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_publishers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_...
account42 4y ago
Training with repos that weren't properly vetted is a choice. It doesn't mean you aren't responsible when that leads to license issues.
AnthonBerg 4y ago
> Copilot is magnifying a problem that was already there. Copilot is a large-scale public distribution service which pumps out copyright violations which directly degrade incentives of competent software authors which are known to have brought about the code that Copilot wants to pump out. It is magnifying the problem of the volume in play of a structural solvent that is dissolving the means to produce quality original software. > It, or any human doing the same, is not doing anything morally wrong. A person has placed an object into society, asking for certain treatment of it, upon which they base their livelihood. Knowingly disrespecting and ignoring the requests placed with it – which are in part embedded in a formal social structure of international law and the accompanying expectations of behavior – BY USING A GIGANTIC MACHINE TO DO SO… to support your livelihood… is not a moral failure? Can you confirm? It’s the same if you don’t use the giant machine for it. It doesn’t matter if you don’t see it or choose not to accept it as such. The original author may still stop working, and there is a completely unnecessary moral failure there.
- eloff 4y ago
  Authors of open source software choose to put their code out into the world. The legal agreement is if you use it, you attribute the use and abide by the rules of the license. In practice this is not often done, and there is little consequence except in truly egregious cases. I don't know any open source contributors who stop working based on this or have their livelihoods affected. I personally, do not care. If I didn't want people to use the code, I wouldn't have published it at all. If copliot were to reproduce code from a public repo of mine, I don't care. The genie is not going back in the bottle, so this whole discussion is moot.

by eloff 4y ago

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.

mafuy 4y ago

> I can't copyright a single sentence fragment. But almost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_publishers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_...

account42 4y ago

Training with repos that weren't properly vetted is a choice. It doesn't mean you aren't responsible when that leads to license issues.

AnthonBerg 4y ago

> Copilot is magnifying a problem that was already there. Copilot is a large-scale public distribution service which pumps out copyright violations which directly degrade incentives of competent software authors which are known to have brought about the code that Copilot wants to pump out. It is magnifying the problem of the volume in play of a structural solvent that is dissolving the means to produce quality original software. > It, or any human doing the same, is not doing anything morally wrong. A person has placed an object into society, asking for certain treatment of it, upon which they base their livelihood. Knowingly disrespecting and ignoring the requests placed with it – which are in part embedded in a formal social structure of international law and the accompanying expectations of behavior – BY USING A GIGANTIC MACHINE TO DO SO… to support your livelihood… is not a moral failure? Can you confirm? It’s the same if you don’t use the giant machine for it. It doesn’t matter if you don’t see it or choose not to accept it as such. The original author may still stop working, and there is a completely unnecessary moral failure there.

eloff 4y ago
Authors of open source software choose to put their code out into the world. The legal agreement is if you use it, you attribute the use and abide by the rules of the license. In practice this is not often done, and there is little consequence except in truly egregious cases. I don't know any open source contributors who stop working based on this or have their livelihoods affected. I personally, do not care. If I didn't want people to use the code, I wouldn't have published it at all. If copliot were to reproduce code from a public repo of mine, I don't care. The genie is not going back in the bottle, so this whole discussion is moot.