4 ms·

out of curiosity, would anybody else cease to have an issue copilot if it was an open source model? i'm not paying for copilot right now because i'm waiting fo

out of curiosity, would anybody else cease to have an issue copilot if it was an open source model? i'm not paying for copilot right now because i'm waiting for this to shake out. but i'd be happy to pay (even their current asking price) if i knew the model was also open source and could be self hosted. maybe this is the wrong way to ask the question, but hopefully it makes sense

runnerup 4y ago
If it was GPL it could use GPL code and legally there would be no debate.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Jweb_Guru 4y ago
  The project could, yes. It wouldn't necessarily change the legality of using it in non-GPL projects, though. If people were only using it in license-compatible projects and it was license-compatible with GPL, I doubt anyone would have any complaints (even though in theory it could also be picking up stuff from other incompatible licenses).
- comice 4y ago
  One of the requirements of the GPL is that credit is given (and indeed this is needed for enforcement to work because the GPL leverages copyright).
throwaway290 4y ago
If it was a true OSS project, first it would not clearly benefit a single near-monopoly by using my code (as in, that wouldn't be its purpose), and second I'm sure its contributors would be well placed to understand the issue and from the start bake in a reliable, transparent mechanism for opting out. As is, it's EEE applied to open source-- Microsoft's ultimate play against the ethic that brought us Linux among other things. When your brainchild gets gobbled up faster than you can blink, pushed to people who never learn about your existence, and a megacorp that you are ethically opposed to profits from the process, the need for self-actualization is no longer addressed. The fundamental incentive that pushes us to publish in the open, to have other humans acknowledge you and your work and feel pride in it, is being eliminated.
david_allison 4y ago
It's not the license of the model, it's the license of the output. As it stands, Copilot is a black-box which strips copyright from a piece of code. I'd be fine if it were a level playing field and GitHub also trained it on private repositories - that's a signal that they don't care about copyright at all. I'd be fine as a developer who releases GPL'ed code if the output was licensed as GPL - obviously no license violation. I'd be fine (within a reasonable scale) if a developer contacted me and asked to use my code under MIT. I'm not fine that Copilot allows people to take my code, 'change the variable names' and remove the license. Especially because I have no visibility of the fact that this has occurred.
- az226 4y ago
  But Copilot doesn't take your code at best it has learned from a fraction of a fraction of your code and synthesized it with tens or thousands of like examples and the output may look similar to your code because it's trying to achieve the same thing. It's not like Copilot takes your entire repo and clones it and says "we washed the onerous license requirements away for ya".
  - david_allison 4y ago
    There's a minimum level of complexity and creativity which constitutes a copyright violation. It's up to a legal professional to draw the line, but I believe it can be a single line of code (`i = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 );`) If I saw 100 LOC which was very similar to something which I wrote, AND contained a log statement copied verbatim, it's very easy to imply that the entire piece of code is a derivative work. Let's say I write FizzBuzz: // Copyright (c) 2022 David Allison. All rights reserved. for num in range(100): if num % 3 == 0 and num % 5 == 0: print("DA: fizzbuzz") elif num % 3 == 0: print("DA: fizz") elif num % 5 == 0: print("DA: buzz") else: print(num) If I found the modified FizzBuzz algorithm in the wild with one line containing the "DA" prefix, it may have been learned from a fraction of a fraction of my code but it still contains my 'unique' creativity, is that a copyright violation? Aside: Due to some uniquely named code I've contributed to, I strongly suspect that Copilot would output my GitHub username. I don't really want to open Pandora's box here, but I'd be curious.
synapse26 4y ago
Yes, I’d be one too. I have no legal opinions about this, but morally, Copilot just doesn’t hit me right. One of the purpose open source exist is for it to be, well, open. It’s so annoying seeing this tool Specifically use only open source code and then have the audacity to close source + paywall access to it. I used to be a little more agreeable with Copilot with training money and all, but seeing Stable Diffusion is willing to open up hundreds of thousands in training, and more in engineering, and therefore create an active community dedicated to improving it everyday, I just can’t help but be so annoyed when one of the world’s biggest tech companies pulls such petty move.
NoboruWataya 4y ago
I agree - it's problematic enough that licensing information gets lost in the Copilot process, but as is we basically have developers contributing their time and expertise, for free, to the development of Microsoft's new paid proprietary product. Worse still, if Copilot is as revolutionary as some people make it out to be, those same developers are inadvertently helping Microsoft build a monopoly in a new market, with all the disastrous consequences that entails.

runnerup 4y ago

If it was GPL it could use GPL code and legally there would be no debate.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Jweb_Guru 4y ago
The project could, yes. It wouldn't necessarily change the legality of using it in non-GPL projects, though. If people were only using it in license-compatible projects and it was license-compatible with GPL, I doubt anyone would have any complaints (even though in theory it could also be picking up stuff from other incompatible licenses).
comice 4y ago
One of the requirements of the GPL is that credit is given (and indeed this is needed for enforcement to work because the GPL leverages copyright).

throwaway290 4y ago

If it was a true OSS project, first it would not clearly benefit a single near-monopoly by using my code (as in, that wouldn't be its purpose), and second I'm sure its contributors would be well placed to understand the issue and from the start bake in a reliable, transparent mechanism for opting out. As is, it's EEE applied to open source-- Microsoft's ultimate play against the ethic that brought us Linux among other things. When your brainchild gets gobbled up faster than you can blink, pushed to people who never learn about your existence, and a megacorp that you are ethically opposed to profits from the process, the need for self-actualization is no longer addressed. The fundamental incentive that pushes us to publish in the open, to have other humans acknowledge you and your work and feel pride in it, is being eliminated.

david_allison 4y ago

It's not the license of the model, it's the license of the output. As it stands, Copilot is a black-box which strips copyright from a piece of code. I'd be fine if it were a level playing field and GitHub also trained it on private repositories - that's a signal that they don't care about copyright at all. I'd be fine as a developer who releases GPL'ed code if the output was licensed as GPL - obviously no license violation. I'd be fine (within a reasonable scale) if a developer contacted me and asked to use my code under MIT. I'm not fine that Copilot allows people to take my code, 'change the variable names' and remove the license. Especially because I have no visibility of the fact that this has occurred.

az226 4y ago
But Copilot doesn't take your code at best it has learned from a fraction of a fraction of your code and synthesized it with tens or thousands of like examples and the output may look similar to your code because it's trying to achieve the same thing. It's not like Copilot takes your entire repo and clones it and says "we washed the onerous license requirements away for ya".
- david_allison 4y ago
  There's a minimum level of complexity and creativity which constitutes a copyright violation. It's up to a legal professional to draw the line, but I believe it can be a single line of code (`i = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 );`) If I saw 100 LOC which was very similar to something which I wrote, AND contained a log statement copied verbatim, it's very easy to imply that the entire piece of code is a derivative work. Let's say I write FizzBuzz: // Copyright (c) 2022 David Allison. All rights reserved. for num in range(100): if num % 3 == 0 and num % 5 == 0: print("DA: fizzbuzz") elif num % 3 == 0: print("DA: fizz") elif num % 5 == 0: print("DA: buzz") else: print(num) If I found the modified FizzBuzz algorithm in the wild with one line containing the "DA" prefix, it may have been learned from a fraction of a fraction of my code but it still contains my 'unique' creativity, is that a copyright violation? Aside: Due to some uniquely named code I've contributed to, I strongly suspect that Copilot would output my GitHub username. I don't really want to open Pandora's box here, but I'd be curious.

synapse26 4y ago

Yes, I’d be one too. I have no legal opinions about this, but morally, Copilot just doesn’t hit me right. One of the purpose open source exist is for it to be, well, open. It’s so annoying seeing this tool Specifically use only open source code and then have the audacity to close source + paywall access to it. I used to be a little more agreeable with Copilot with training money and all, but seeing Stable Diffusion is willing to open up hundreds of thousands in training, and more in engineering, and therefore create an active community dedicated to improving it everyday, I just can’t help but be so annoyed when one of the world’s biggest tech companies pulls such petty move.

NoboruWataya 4y ago

I agree - it's problematic enough that licensing information gets lost in the Copilot process, but as is we basically have developers contributing their time and expertise, for free, to the development of Microsoft's new paid proprietary product. Worse still, if Copilot is as revolutionary as some people make it out to be, those same developers are inadvertently helping Microsoft build a monopoly in a new market, with all the disastrous consequences that entails.