4 ms·

Has anyone produced a legally watertight license or clause for other licenses that prevents code being used for training of copilot-like services?

rwmj 4y ago
It would be a Field of Endeavor restriction so the resulting license wouldn't be open source, and I don't think (?) Copilot is trained on proprietary code. (Section 6 here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd)
- MattPalmer1086 4y ago
  I don't really care if a license meets some arbitrary definition. Let's say I added a clause to my BSD license that prohibits the copying of this code to train ML models. Would that not immediately make GitHub in violation of this license? Or do they only train it where the license is explicitly one of the ones it knows about?
  - frumper 4y ago
    If you upload it to GitHub, you've already granted them a license to use it to improve their service. You aren't sharing it with GitHub under your custom BSD license, you're sharing it with GitHub users under that.
    - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
      Thanks. I finally understood its a separate license grant to GitHub.
      - frumper 4y ago
        Also, apologies for responding to you twice with the same thing. I think I mixed something up and didn't intend to do that
insanitybit 4y ago
The article addresses this in a number of ways. For example, > That rings a bit like the Facebook memes of yesteryear promising users that if they just copy and paste these magical sentences onto their timelines, then Facebook won’t be able to do something or other with their data or accounts.
- MattPalmer1086 4y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your point. The only legal way you can use copyrighted code is due to the license attached to it by the copyright holder. If a license specifically prohibits copying the code for a purpose, then it is a violation of the copyright to copy the code for that purpose. You have no other legal way to do it. These aren't magic words, they are legal obligations. Ok, well maybe legal obligations are magic words. But it is magic that works :). Otherwise things like GPL could not function.
  - ISL 4y ago
    The (insightful) point is that if the copyright holder is the one who uploads something to GitHub, that person has also agreed to the ToS. That was something I hadn't considered before reading the article. That line of argument might defang any claims I might have against Copilot, as I have personally uploaded much of my public open-source code to GitHub.
    - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
      It's a good point. Having just read the terms of service, it is completely unclear that GitHub could monetise your code by training ML models on it. They can analyse it. They say they can't sell it or distribute it outside the service. Even though this can apparently happen with copilot sometimes! https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    > The only legal way you can use copyrighted code is due to the license attached to it by the copyright holder. This is wrong on so many levels. 1. Copyright grants a limited set of rights to the copyright holder. "Use" typically doesn't fall into that set. Everyone has the right to "use" copyrighted material for any purpose that isn't some kind of copy or distribution. 2. Even when we consider uses which are actually covered by copyright, a license is not the only way to legally copy the material. Fair use exists. 3. There is no such thing as "the license attached to it". Licenses do not "attach" to copyrighted works. A license is an individual agreement between the copyright holder and each and every person who wants to use the material (within the scope of copyright rights and outside of fair use). Those agreements can be different in every instance, if the licensor and licensee have so agreed. The only thing a LICENSE file or other similar way of indicating a license on code does is make a (binding) offer to license the work under the specified terms to all comers. Once anyone actually has a license by any means, including a separately negotiated license, then the LICENSE file no longer has anything to do with them or their use of the material. In the case of github, they have separately negotiated (by making a binding offer of their own in their ToS) a license to use the material for the provision of their service; therefore the LICENSE file has nothing to do with them (unless they want to use the offered license instead of the one they negotiated, and they haven't negotiated away the right to use the license offered in the LICENSE file).

rwmj 4y ago

It would be a Field of Endeavor restriction so the resulting license wouldn't be open source, and I don't think (?) Copilot is trained on proprietary code. (Section 6 here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd)

MattPalmer1086 4y ago
I don't really care if a license meets some arbitrary definition. Let's say I added a clause to my BSD license that prohibits the copying of this code to train ML models. Would that not immediately make GitHub in violation of this license? Or do they only train it where the license is explicitly one of the ones it knows about?
- frumper 4y ago
  If you upload it to GitHub, you've already granted them a license to use it to improve their service. You aren't sharing it with GitHub under your custom BSD license, you're sharing it with GitHub users under that.
  - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
    Thanks. I finally understood its a separate license grant to GitHub.
    - frumper 4y ago
      Also, apologies for responding to you twice with the same thing. I think I mixed something up and didn't intend to do that

insanitybit 4y ago

The article addresses this in a number of ways. For example, > That rings a bit like the Facebook memes of yesteryear promising users that if they just copy and paste these magical sentences onto their timelines, then Facebook won’t be able to do something or other with their data or accounts.

MattPalmer1086 4y ago
I'm not sure I understand your point. The only legal way you can use copyrighted code is due to the license attached to it by the copyright holder. If a license specifically prohibits copying the code for a purpose, then it is a violation of the copyright to copy the code for that purpose. You have no other legal way to do it. These aren't magic words, they are legal obligations. Ok, well maybe legal obligations are magic words. But it is magic that works :). Otherwise things like GPL could not function.
- ISL 4y ago
  The (insightful) point is that if the copyright holder is the one who uploads something to GitHub, that person has also agreed to the ToS. That was something I hadn't considered before reading the article. That line of argument might defang any claims I might have against Copilot, as I have personally uploaded much of my public open-source code to GitHub.
  - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
    It's a good point. Having just read the terms of service, it is completely unclear that GitHub could monetise your code by training ML models on it. They can analyse it. They say they can't sell it or distribute it outside the service. Even though this can apparently happen with copilot sometimes! https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  > The only legal way you can use copyrighted code is due to the license attached to it by the copyright holder. This is wrong on so many levels. 1. Copyright grants a limited set of rights to the copyright holder. "Use" typically doesn't fall into that set. Everyone has the right to "use" copyrighted material for any purpose that isn't some kind of copy or distribution. 2. Even when we consider uses which are actually covered by copyright, a license is not the only way to legally copy the material. Fair use exists. 3. There is no such thing as "the license attached to it". Licenses do not "attach" to copyrighted works. A license is an individual agreement between the copyright holder and each and every person who wants to use the material (within the scope of copyright rights and outside of fair use). Those agreements can be different in every instance, if the licensor and licensee have so agreed. The only thing a LICENSE file or other similar way of indicating a license on code does is make a (binding) offer to license the work under the specified terms to all comers. Once anyone actually has a license by any means, including a separately negotiated license, then the LICENSE file no longer has anything to do with them or their use of the material. In the case of github, they have separately negotiated (by making a binding offer of their own in their ToS) a license to use the material for the provision of their service; therefore the LICENSE file has nothing to do with them (unless they want to use the offered license instead of the one they negotiated, and they haven't negotiated away the right to use the license offered in the LICENSE file).