4 ms·

> It can't be "fair use" to take other peoples' works at zero cost, and use it to build a commercial product without compensation. You just described open sour

> It can't be "fair use" to take other peoples' works at zero cost, and use it to build a commercial product without compensation. You just described open source software. That's the whole heart of this lawsuit, and equally Copilot. It was trained on OSS which is explicitly licensed for free use.

bogwog 4y ago
Ok you got me, that wording was lazy on my part. But that's a really bad take on yours: > It was trained on OSS which is explicitly licensed for free use. That's not what the lawsuit is about. It's not about money, it's about licensing. OSS licenses have specific requirements and restrictions for using them, and Copilot explicitly ignores those requirements, thus violating the license agreement. The GPL, for example, requires you to release your own source code if you use it in a publicly-released product. If you don't do that, you're committing copyright infringement, since you're copying someone's work without permission.
- bpicolo 4y ago
  Yeah, and I think that's fair re: licensing. Curious to see how it pans out. Also, re: your edit, not quite. They require you to release modified source under certain conditions if you make modifications to it. If everybody had to release code using GPL to the world, every companies code would currently be released to the world. There's more nuance than that. The gnu site covers a lot of that nuance (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#UnreleasedMods https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#UnreleasedMods) LGPL is the one that enterprises won't touch with a 10 foot pole, due to more restrictive licensing, and more conditions under which you'd have to open source your own code.
deathanatos 4y ago
Most companies building commercial products on top of FOSS are obeying the license requirements. (I have been through due diligence reviews where we had to demonstrate that, for each library/tool/package.) The same cannot be said for Copilot: there have been prior examples here on HN showing that it can emit large chunks of copyrighted code (without the license).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
xigoi 4y ago
> That's the whole heart of this lawsuit, and equally Copilot. It was trained on OSS which is explicitly licensed for free use. Most open-source software is not licensed for free use. MIT and GPL, the two most common licenses, both require attribution.
chlorion 4y ago
FOSS license does not mean "do whatever you want". The GPL requires all derived work to also be licensed under a GPL compatible license for example.

bogwog 4y ago

Ok you got me, that wording was lazy on my part. But that's a really bad take on yours: > It was trained on OSS which is explicitly licensed for free use. That's not what the lawsuit is about. It's not about money, it's about licensing. OSS licenses have specific requirements and restrictions for using them, and Copilot explicitly ignores those requirements, thus violating the license agreement. The GPL, for example, requires you to release your own source code if you use it in a publicly-released product. If you don't do that, you're committing copyright infringement, since you're copying someone's work without permission.

bpicolo 4y ago
Yeah, and I think that's fair re: licensing. Curious to see how it pans out. Also, re: your edit, not quite. They require you to release modified source under certain conditions if you make modifications to it. If everybody had to release code using GPL to the world, every companies code would currently be released to the world. There's more nuance than that. The gnu site covers a lot of that nuance (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#UnreleasedMods https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#UnreleasedMods) LGPL is the one that enterprises won't touch with a 10 foot pole, due to more restrictive licensing, and more conditions under which you'd have to open source your own code.

deathanatos 4y ago

Most companies building commercial products on top of FOSS are obeying the license requirements. (I have been through due diligence reviews where we had to demonstrate that, for each library/tool/package.) The same cannot be said for Copilot: there have been prior examples here on HN showing that it can emit large chunks of copyrighted code (without the license).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

xigoi 4y ago

> That's the whole heart of this lawsuit, and equally Copilot. It was trained on OSS which is explicitly licensed for free use. Most open-source software is not licensed for free use. MIT and GPL, the two most common licenses, both require attribution.

chlorion 4y ago

FOSS license does not mean "do whatever you want". The GPL requires all derived work to also be licensed under a GPL compatible license for example.