4 ms·
Microsoft can argue that Copilot emits a mixture of intellectual property (a pattern from here, a pattern from there), so they don't need to give attribution.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
Microsoft can argue that Copilot emits a mixture of intellectual property (a pattern from here, a pattern from there), so they don't need to give attribution.
But if we disallow training, it's unambiguous.
Either you fed the program into your training system or you didn't. The No-AI 3-Clause License forbids use in training, no question about it. If you train your model on this text, you are obviously violating the license.
Systems like Microsoft Copilot are a new threat to intellectual property. The open source licenses need to change to adapt to the threat.
Otherwise Microsoft and Amazon will pillage open source software, converting all our work into anonymous common property that they can monetize.
We're watching it happen.
- josephcsible 4y agoYou misunderstand Microsoft's legal argument. They aren't saying that ambiguity in the licenses means that they're in compliance with them. Their argument is that what they're doing is fair use, so they don't need to follow the licenses.
- bugfix-66 4y agoIf the fair use argument holds, there will be no possible defense against it. Microsoft will convert all open source into anonymous common property and monetize it. That's the hopeless scenario. Otherwise, the fair use argument fails to be upheld. Then Microsoft must argue that normally Copilot regurgitates a mixture of patterns from various sources, and therefore the licenses in the training data can be ignored. To defeat this fall-back argument, we must attack the root of the problem: the moment our code is used in training. That's precisely what the No-AI 3-Clause License achieves, while otherwise being the permissive BSD 2-Clause License that we know and love.