3 ms·

Reading a source then writing your own code with the same ideas in mind isn't a derived work and shouldn't need attribution. It will be a crying shame if Copilo

Reading a source then writing your own code with the same ideas in mind isn't a derived work and shouldn't need attribution. It will be a crying shame if Copilot output is mired in unwarranted legal trouble with how much of a productivity booster it is.

jen20 4y ago
Well that is indeed the legal question to be answered. The post I replied to asserted the derivative nature. The ability to copyright-launder via an API will lead to some interesting consequences for sure: I wouldn’t want to be elastic search or mongodb relying on source-available licensing if it comes about.
- jimmaswell 4y ago
  I think a more appropriate IP model for code is closer to how patents work. The code must be filed and becomes available to/usable by the public after the protection expires.
  - jen20 4y ago
    Maybe that is more appropriate but it is not the reality of today.
joxel 4y ago
[flagged]
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  And the people who decided to go ahead with implementing it probably need help filing a motion in court. Are you just railing against specialization?
  - joxel 4y ago
    Yeah because thinking its ridiculous people who don't know how to open email decide the future of software cases is railing against specialization :/
silverwasthere 4y ago
I thought everyone knew the person that reads the code can only describe it to someone else who writes the new code. Having the same party do it would make it a copy, if the purpose and construction is the same. At least that's how compaq beat IBM and started all this monkey business. Granted I could be full of it, I wasn't alive yet.
- davorak 4y ago
  > I thought everyone knew the person that reads the code can only describe it to someone else who writes the new code. Having the same party do it would make it a copy, if the purpose and construction is the same. The same party can do it and not have it count as a copy, but it could be a copy if the party was not careful. So a company that wants to avoid potentially being sued will not allow one party to do both. So jimmaswell is correct to my understanding but a company may want extra legal armor/padding.
AlexandrB 4y ago
All intellectual property law is a tradeoff between efficiency and monetizability. It would be a huge productivity booster to copy/paste source code wholesale as well. Or to implement existing patents instead of having to work around them. But then the market for software would look very different than it does today. If that's the future people want, that's fine - but everyone should play by the same rules.
velcrovan 4y ago
When a computer is fed human-developed code and then reproduces it verbatim elsewhere (which copilot has been shown to do) it is called “copying”.

jen20 4y ago

Well that is indeed the legal question to be answered. The post I replied to asserted the derivative nature. The ability to copyright-launder via an API will lead to some interesting consequences for sure: I wouldn’t want to be elastic search or mongodb relying on source-available licensing if it comes about.

jimmaswell 4y ago
I think a more appropriate IP model for code is closer to how patents work. The code must be filed and becomes available to/usable by the public after the protection expires.
- jen20 4y ago
  Maybe that is more appropriate but it is not the reality of today.

joxel 4y ago

[flagged]

AlexandrB 4y ago
And the people who decided to go ahead with implementing it probably need help filing a motion in court. Are you just railing against specialization?
- joxel 4y ago
  Yeah because thinking its ridiculous people who don't know how to open email decide the future of software cases is railing against specialization :/

silverwasthere 4y ago

I thought everyone knew the person that reads the code can only describe it to someone else who writes the new code. Having the same party do it would make it a copy, if the purpose and construction is the same. At least that's how compaq beat IBM and started all this monkey business. Granted I could be full of it, I wasn't alive yet.

davorak 4y ago
> I thought everyone knew the person that reads the code can only describe it to someone else who writes the new code. Having the same party do it would make it a copy, if the purpose and construction is the same. The same party can do it and not have it count as a copy, but it could be a copy if the party was not careful. So a company that wants to avoid potentially being sued will not allow one party to do both. So jimmaswell is correct to my understanding but a company may want extra legal armor/padding.

AlexandrB 4y ago

All intellectual property law is a tradeoff between efficiency and monetizability. It would be a huge productivity booster to copy/paste source code wholesale as well. Or to implement existing patents instead of having to work around them. But then the market for software would look very different than it does today. If that's the future people want, that's fine - but everyone should play by the same rules.

velcrovan 4y ago

When a computer is fed human-developed code and then reproduces it verbatim elsewhere (which copilot has been shown to do) it is called “copying”.