5 ms·

What we need is a new license (like AGPL did for cloud) that prevents machines from ingesting and learning from the code. And all open source software who has t

What we need is a new license (like AGPL did for cloud) that prevents machines from ingesting and learning from the code. And all open source software who has trouble with copilot then relicense to this specific license avoid this. Involving government will be a terrible approach that will stifle innovation. EDIT:1. Not a lawyer, but, unlike copyright that just blocks usage, I think license can be more creative and will help to preserve the FOSS spirit. For example, a license can ask for access to be provided to the source code, other data collected and model file that makes use of your code. Releasing the copilot model in open should be enough to make MSFT backoff.

bugfix-66 4y ago
The No-AI 3-Clause License: https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304facc51cdacbba3f99654652bf428 https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304fa... This is the only license to explicitly disallow language model training and inference using your code. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: ... 3. Use in source or binary form for the construction or operation of predictive software generation systems is prohibited. All other licenses seem to apply only when the code is emitted, and therefore can't really protect you. This attacks the problem at the source. If Microsoft trains Copilot on your code, they are unambiguously violating an explicit condition that controls use. Otherwise, it's just the standard BSD 2-Clause License.
- wanderingmind 4y ago
  I think its a good start. Not a lawyer, But my guess is the definition around predictibe systems need to be defined by courts. If a system just collects and curates, but then is fully firewalled from the transforming or learning module, is that part of predictive systems? Its a fascinating start and I will be observing its adaption.
- fargle 4y ago
  unfortunately that's a terrible idea: 1. copyright licenses cannot be imagined to limit what you do with the legal copy of your software. it's not what copyright is or does. 2. it's also no longer an open source license, OSI, DFSG, GPL are all incompatible and would create practical problems for your would be users this is a problem that doesn't need to be solved; your license likely already prohibits this - copying without attribution, re-licensing, or license-washing. what remains is courts fine tuning what is "fair use" snippets or not, and it's not likely to come down as OK to use snippets like the fast sqrt as fair use. same whether it's a human abusing fair use, or a company, or a machine used by either of those. the AI aspect has no legal bearing and changes nothing - it just made the problem practical enough to actually happen. open source people and projects that have had their licenses violated need to sue and defend their existing copyrights.
breck 4y ago
#LicensesAreForLosers
- wanderingmind 4y ago
  Maybe you should tell that quote to RMS /s
heavyset_go 4y ago
It seems that the argument that Microsoft will use is that their use of copyrighted code is actually fair use. If it's fair use, they're free to ignore your license that tells them they can't train Copilot on it. Ultimately, copyright is a fiction that's created and protected by the government. A lawsuit is how we decide what is legally protected or not by copyright.
- wanderingmind 4y ago
  Yes that will require a few court ruling just like how court recognised GPL is a valid license to stop corporations from violating it. Ultimately, we don't want a blanket ban or approval for MSFT to use FOSS code. License can help make it possible to have nuance and a case by case basis.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
PeterisP 4y ago
The applicability of various open source licenses relies on the fact that without accepting the license, the act of distributing software would be a violation of copyright law as that is an exclusive right of the copyright holder and requires their permission (i.e. license). Anyone can refuse the conditions of the GPL (just as any other contract), it's just that without accepting the GPL license they aren't allowed to redistribute their version of the software, and you can sue them for copyright infringement. "machines learning from the code" is not like that - this is not an exclusive right awarded to the authors (quite the opposite, quoting copyright law, "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.") and it does not require the permission of the copyright owner. If I have a legitimately obtained copy of some copyrighted work, no matter if it's a book, audio recording or code, and I don't have any contractual restrictions, I'm free to train a ML model on it. And if an open source license like you propose would create such contractual restrictions, I don't need to enter that contract, because I don't need a license for this.
- bugfix-66 4y ago
  The BSD 2-Clause License appears to attach conditions to both "redistribution" and "use". Quote: All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Is that a mistake in the BSD license? I don't think so. I think you are mistaken. See the discussion here "Can a software license impose restrictions on the place where the software is to be used, so that a court would enforce those restrictions?" https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/78519/can-a-software-license-validly-restrict-place-of-use-or-impose-restrictions-on https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/78519/can-a-software... There are numerous examples there of licenses restricting use: Apple's licenses, the Unreal Engine, etc. License Restrictions Sample Clauses: License Restrictions. Licensor reserves all rights not expressly granted to You. The Software is licensed for Your internal use only. Except as this Agreement expressly allows, You may not (1) copy (except for back-up purposes), modify, alter, create derivative works, reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software except and only to the extent expressly permitted by applicable law; (2) transfer, assign, pledge, rent, timeshare, host or lease the Software, or sublicense any of Your license grants or rights under this Agreement; in whole or in part, without prior written permission of Licensor; (3) remove any patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret or other proprietary notices or labels on the Software or its documentation; or (4) disclose the results of any performance, functional or other evaluation or benchmarking of the Software to any third party without the prior written permission of Licensor. Hosting Restrictions. In the event that You desire to have a third party manage, host (either remotely or virtually) or use the Software on Your behalf, You shall (1) first enter into a valid and binding agreement with such third party that contains terms and conditions to protect Licensor’s rights in the Software that are no less prohibitive and/or restrictive than those contained in this Agreement, including, without limitation, the Verification section below; (2) prohibit use by such third party except for the sole benefit of You; and (3) be solely responsible to Licensor for any and all breaches of the above terms and conditions by such third party. If a license can prohibit decompilation or copying, we can obviously prohibit language model training. And that's what we need to do, for the reasons stated here: https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304facc51cdacbba3f99654652bf428 https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304fa...
avodonosov 4y ago
Not nesseserily a single new license, many existing licenses could be upgraded by directly addressing this type of use. Maybe extending the definition of derivative work.

bugfix-66 4y ago

The No-AI 3-Clause License: https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304facc51cdacbba3f99654652bf428 https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304fa... This is the only license to explicitly disallow language model training and inference using your code. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: ... 3. Use in source or binary form for the construction or operation of predictive software generation systems is prohibited. All other licenses seem to apply only when the code is emitted, and therefore can't really protect you. This attacks the problem at the source. If Microsoft trains Copilot on your code, they are unambiguously violating an explicit condition that controls use. Otherwise, it's just the standard BSD 2-Clause License.

wanderingmind 4y ago
I think its a good start. Not a lawyer, But my guess is the definition around predictibe systems need to be defined by courts. If a system just collects and curates, but then is fully firewalled from the transforming or learning module, is that part of predictive systems? Its a fascinating start and I will be observing its adaption.
fargle 4y ago
unfortunately that's a terrible idea: 1. copyright licenses cannot be imagined to limit what you do with the legal copy of your software. it's not what copyright is or does. 2. it's also no longer an open source license, OSI, DFSG, GPL are all incompatible and would create practical problems for your would be users this is a problem that doesn't need to be solved; your license likely already prohibits this - copying without attribution, re-licensing, or license-washing. what remains is courts fine tuning what is "fair use" snippets or not, and it's not likely to come down as OK to use snippets like the fast sqrt as fair use. same whether it's a human abusing fair use, or a company, or a machine used by either of those. the AI aspect has no legal bearing and changes nothing - it just made the problem practical enough to actually happen. open source people and projects that have had their licenses violated need to sue and defend their existing copyrights.

breck 4y ago

#LicensesAreForLosers

wanderingmind 4y ago
Maybe you should tell that quote to RMS /s

heavyset_go 4y ago

It seems that the argument that Microsoft will use is that their use of copyrighted code is actually fair use. If it's fair use, they're free to ignore your license that tells them they can't train Copilot on it. Ultimately, copyright is a fiction that's created and protected by the government. A lawsuit is how we decide what is legally protected or not by copyright.

wanderingmind 4y ago
Yes that will require a few court ruling just like how court recognised GPL is a valid license to stop corporations from violating it. Ultimately, we don't want a blanket ban or approval for MSFT to use FOSS code. License can help make it possible to have nuance and a case by case basis.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

PeterisP 4y ago

The applicability of various open source licenses relies on the fact that without accepting the license, the act of distributing software would be a violation of copyright law as that is an exclusive right of the copyright holder and requires their permission (i.e. license). Anyone can refuse the conditions of the GPL (just as any other contract), it's just that without accepting the GPL license they aren't allowed to redistribute their version of the software, and you can sue them for copyright infringement. "machines learning from the code" is not like that - this is not an exclusive right awarded to the authors (quite the opposite, quoting copyright law, "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.") and it does not require the permission of the copyright owner. If I have a legitimately obtained copy of some copyrighted work, no matter if it's a book, audio recording or code, and I don't have any contractual restrictions, I'm free to train a ML model on it. And if an open source license like you propose would create such contractual restrictions, I don't need to enter that contract, because I don't need a license for this.

bugfix-66 4y ago
The BSD 2-Clause License appears to attach conditions to both "redistribution" and "use". Quote: All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Is that a mistake in the BSD license? I don't think so. I think you are mistaken. See the discussion here "Can a software license impose restrictions on the place where the software is to be used, so that a court would enforce those restrictions?" https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/78519/can-a-software-license-validly-restrict-place-of-use-or-impose-restrictions-on https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/78519/can-a-software... There are numerous examples there of licenses restricting use: Apple's licenses, the Unreal Engine, etc. License Restrictions Sample Clauses: License Restrictions. Licensor reserves all rights not expressly granted to You. The Software is licensed for Your internal use only. Except as this Agreement expressly allows, You may not (1) copy (except for back-up purposes), modify, alter, create derivative works, reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software except and only to the extent expressly permitted by applicable law; (2) transfer, assign, pledge, rent, timeshare, host or lease the Software, or sublicense any of Your license grants or rights under this Agreement; in whole or in part, without prior written permission of Licensor; (3) remove any patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret or other proprietary notices or labels on the Software or its documentation; or (4) disclose the results of any performance, functional or other evaluation or benchmarking of the Software to any third party without the prior written permission of Licensor. Hosting Restrictions. In the event that You desire to have a third party manage, host (either remotely or virtually) or use the Software on Your behalf, You shall (1) first enter into a valid and binding agreement with such third party that contains terms and conditions to protect Licensor’s rights in the Software that are no less prohibitive and/or restrictive than those contained in this Agreement, including, without limitation, the Verification section below; (2) prohibit use by such third party except for the sole benefit of You; and (3) be solely responsible to Licensor for any and all breaches of the above terms and conditions by such third party. If a license can prohibit decompilation or copying, we can obviously prohibit language model training. And that's what we need to do, for the reasons stated here: https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304facc51cdacbba3f99654652bf428 https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304fa...

avodonosov 4y ago

Not nesseserily a single new license, many existing licenses could be upgraded by directly addressing this type of use. Maybe extending the definition of derivative work.