4 ms·

IANAL, and I'm no fan of copilot, but I wonder if this kind of clause (your #3) is going to fly: you're preemptively prohibiting certain kinds of reading of the

IANAL, and I'm no fan of copilot, but I wonder if this kind of clause (your #3) is going to fly: you're preemptively prohibiting certain kinds of reading of the code (when code is read by the ML model in training). But is that something a license can actually do? The legal footing that copyright gives you, on which licensing rests, certainly empowers you to limit things about how others may redistribute your work (and things derived from it), but does it empower you to limit how others may read your work? As a ridiculous example, I don't think it would be enforceable to have a license say "this code can't be used by left-handed people", since that's not what copyright is about, right?

bugfix-66 4y ago
The license conditionally permits (i.e., controls) "redistribution and use in source and binary forms". I think we can constrain use with the third clause. My question is, how should we word that clause?
- bombcar 4y ago
  Many licenses have constraints, whether this wording is the best way to do it is up for discussion, but it's certainly possible to do it.
- an1sotropy 4y ago
  Licenses get to set terms of redistribution. But training of the ML model -- the thing described by your #3 -- is not redistribution (imho). So maybe it's as unenforceable as saying left-handed people can't read your code. The redistribution happens later, either when copilot blurps out some of your code, or when the copilot user then distributes something using that code (I'm curious which). At that point, whether some use of your code is infringing your license doesn't depend on the path the code took, does it? (in which case #3 is moot)
  - bugfix-66 4y ago
    The BSD license also controls "use", not just "redistribution": Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: That's word-for-word BSD license. The only change I made is adding clause 3: 3. Use in source or binary forms for the construction or operation of predictive software generation systems is prohibited.
    - an1sotropy 4y ago
      Okay; thanks for clarifying. I actually hadn't noticed that use of "use" in the BSD license before. I think I need an IP lawyer explain what that "use" means.

bugfix-66 4y ago

The license conditionally permits (i.e., controls) "redistribution and use in source and binary forms". I think we can constrain use with the third clause. My question is, how should we word that clause?

bombcar 4y ago
Many licenses have constraints, whether this wording is the best way to do it is up for discussion, but it's certainly possible to do it.
an1sotropy 4y ago
Licenses get to set terms of redistribution. But training of the ML model -- the thing described by your #3 -- is not redistribution (imho). So maybe it's as unenforceable as saying left-handed people can't read your code. The redistribution happens later, either when copilot blurps out some of your code, or when the copilot user then distributes something using that code (I'm curious which). At that point, whether some use of your code is infringing your license doesn't depend on the path the code took, does it? (in which case #3 is moot)
- bugfix-66 4y ago
  The BSD license also controls "use", not just "redistribution": Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: That's word-for-word BSD license. The only change I made is adding clause 3: 3. Use in source or binary forms for the construction or operation of predictive software generation systems is prohibited.
  - an1sotropy 4y ago
    Okay; thanks for clarifying. I actually hadn't noticed that use of "use" in the BSD license before. I think I need an IP lawyer explain what that "use" means.