3 ms·
The one thing we can say with complete certainty is that most programmers who had their code used without permission will not receive very much money at all if
by karaterobot 4y ago
The one thing we can say with complete certainty is that most programmers who had their code used without permission will not receive very much money at all if this class action lawsuit is decided in their favor.
- sqeaky 4y agoMoney likely isn't the main goal (maybe it is for the lawyers), these are open source repos. Maybe they didn't consent to have their code used as training and that seems like the kind of thing consent should be needed for. Maybe this the AI spitting out copied snippets is a violation of open source licensing without attribution.
- mike_d 4y agoI don't care about the money. I support this because it will establish case law that other companies can't ignore licenses as long as they throw AI somewhere in the chain. If "I took your code and trained an AI that then generated your code" is a legal defense, the GPL and similar licenses all become moot.
- bastardoperator 4y agoBut that's not what's happening here. Also, you grant GitHub a license. https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#4-license-grant-to-us https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... "You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content" Copilot displays content. Case closed.
- mike_d 4y agoFeel free to keep reading the next line down: "This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content"
- heavyset_go 4y agoI don't want money, I want the terms of my licenses to be adhered to.