4 ms·

if the suit against copilot fails then the GPL is effectively dead (along with all other licenses that require attribution) as it will allow you to launder co

if the suit against copilot fails then the GPL is effectively dead (along with all other licenses that require attribution) as it will allow you to launder code automatically through an LLM to remove copyright however if the suit is successful: every company/individual that has used it is likely suddenly liable for millions of claims of copyright infrigement I look forward to sending out demands for settlement to everyone that's ever publicly admitted using copilot $150,000 per infringement with wilfulness, less without

yellowapple 4y ago
If the GPL dies then does that kill every other EULA with it?
- blibble 4y ago
  it would nullify any copyright in EULAs I don't see why you couldn't do the same thing to e.g. the binary of the Windows kernel you're unaffected if you only offer an saas though, as the end user never has any code/binary to launder
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    > I don't see why you couldn't do the same thing to e.g. the binary of the Windows kernel Forget the binary; there have been Windows code leaks every now and again over the years. Feed one of those into a model, start generating code for ReactOS, and see how long until MS decides that actually AI is infringing...
sebzim4500 4y ago
Surely the users would only be liable if they (i) actually produced code which is verbatim the same as a block of GPL code (ii) got caught >I look forward to sending out demands for settlement to everyone that's ever publicly admitted using copilot Feel free, they'll tell you to leave them alone. Then what? Might as well ask every fortune 500 company for a pony instead.
- blibble 4y ago
  personally I think they'll ruling will result in one of two possible outcomes 1. LLMs are learning like a human, so it's fair use -> GPL dead 2. anything LLMs output are a derivative work (in the copyright sense) of what went into it -> all Copilot output is infringing the GPL in the second case: anyone that's used it is now liable (even if they didn't intend to be)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
circuit10 4y ago
"as it will allow you to launder code automatically through an LLM" No it won't, obviously if it copies code exactly then you can't use that. The question is whether Microsoft is liable for the fact that Copilot has the ability to output copyrighted code sometimes or whether people using it just need to check that it hasn't done that before using the code (Copilot can also do this automatically) Google can also show you GPL code in its results, but people aren't trying to sue Google and the user is responsible for checking the license before using it (though Copilot makes this harder) Disclaimer: I haven't read much about the actual lawsuit and I'm not a lawyer but I assume this would be the case
- ska 4y ago
  That latter part is why a number of corporate lawyers are probably deciding "don't touch this with a 10 foot pole for now".
TacticalCoder 4y ago
> if the suit against copilot fails then the GPL is effectively dead Not really because the GPL can be updated with a clause that allows GPLv5 (or whatever the version is going to be) to be used to train public LLM models, but explicitly forbidden to be used to train private models. I somehow don't think this is the end of the GPL... Yet!
- blibble 4y ago
  if it's fair use then it doesn't matter what's in the license Microsoft's position on Copilot is that it's fair use: > When questioned, former GNOME developer and (at the time of writing) GitHub CEO, Nat Friedman, declared publicly “(1) training ML systems on public data is fair use (2) the output belongs to the operator”. https://www.fsf.org/licensing/copilot/if-software-is-my-copilot-who-programmed-my-software https://www.fsf.org/licensing/copilot/if-software-is-my-copi...
cle 4y ago
Humans already launder GPL code by using it to learn and then producing code based on what they learned. We're very close to LLMs doing the same thing. Maybe there's some fundamental difference between humans doing that and humans programming machines to do it, but I can't see it. I don't know how GPL (or copyright in general) can survive in the long run with these technologies.
- rvnx 4y ago
  There is also the other way, humans are laundering AI code, and making it look like they wrote the code, to register copyright to their own name.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    Er, I'm not sure that's laundering; if a human takes AI-generated code and munges it to look human-generated, they applied enough creativity that I would expect them to legitimately have copyright on the result. I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but the bar is pretty low for qualifying.
- kube-system 4y ago
  I think the biggest fundamental difference is that we respect human creativity even when it is learned, because of the value in rights we ascribe to humans. It is expected and natural for humans to fairly use things they have learned as a part of an otherwise unique work. But do we ascribe the same privileges to a machine, particularly when it can be automated? The opportunity cost of the human experience itself is the reason why we even have copy rights.
renewiltord 4y ago
You can't "launder code through an LLM". You're just violating the copyright. That's like "laundering code through your clipboard". It's just a tool. You're the one responsible.
- kube-system 4y ago
  The case they are referencing hinges on whether use of the LLM constitutes fair use when it regurgitates someone else's code.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    I see. Thank you. The question then being whether the LLM has the right to distribute that code, makes sense.
spiralpolitik 4y ago
> however if the suit is successful: every company/individual that has used it is likely suddenly liable for millions of claims of copyright infrigement Only if you can prove that you are the copyright owner of the original work. That might be a challenge for many open source projects. Even projects that require copyright assignment might not have sufficient paperwork to prove this in a court of law. The copyright might not even have been the persons to assign in the first place. You would also face the burden of proving that the fragment that Copilot generated was sufficient to be copyrightable in the first place. The limited grammar of most programming languages would probably make proving that something was copyrightable at the function level hard. Just because the entire work was licensed under the GPL, it doesn't necessarily follow that all the individual fragments when separated out are. Outside of sampling, this is an area that the courts have largely punted on for good reason. It's a rabbit hole nobody wants to go down. Either outcome opens up a huge can of worms that I suspect nobody really wants to touch because it likely ends in mutual destruction.

yellowapple 4y ago

If the GPL dies then does that kill every other EULA with it?

blibble 4y ago
it would nullify any copyright in EULAs I don't see why you couldn't do the same thing to e.g. the binary of the Windows kernel you're unaffected if you only offer an saas though, as the end user never has any code/binary to launder
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  > I don't see why you couldn't do the same thing to e.g. the binary of the Windows kernel Forget the binary; there have been Windows code leaks every now and again over the years. Feed one of those into a model, start generating code for ReactOS, and see how long until MS decides that actually AI is infringing...

sebzim4500 4y ago

Surely the users would only be liable if they (i) actually produced code which is verbatim the same as a block of GPL code (ii) got caught >I look forward to sending out demands for settlement to everyone that's ever publicly admitted using copilot Feel free, they'll tell you to leave them alone. Then what? Might as well ask every fortune 500 company for a pony instead.

blibble 4y ago
personally I think they'll ruling will result in one of two possible outcomes 1. LLMs are learning like a human, so it's fair use -> GPL dead 2. anything LLMs output are a derivative work (in the copyright sense) of what went into it -> all Copilot output is infringing the GPL in the second case: anyone that's used it is now liable (even if they didn't intend to be)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

circuit10 4y ago

"as it will allow you to launder code automatically through an LLM" No it won't, obviously if it copies code exactly then you can't use that. The question is whether Microsoft is liable for the fact that Copilot has the ability to output copyrighted code sometimes or whether people using it just need to check that it hasn't done that before using the code (Copilot can also do this automatically) Google can also show you GPL code in its results, but people aren't trying to sue Google and the user is responsible for checking the license before using it (though Copilot makes this harder) Disclaimer: I haven't read much about the actual lawsuit and I'm not a lawyer but I assume this would be the case

ska 4y ago
That latter part is why a number of corporate lawyers are probably deciding "don't touch this with a 10 foot pole for now".

TacticalCoder 4y ago

> if the suit against copilot fails then the GPL is effectively dead Not really because the GPL can be updated with a clause that allows GPLv5 (or whatever the version is going to be) to be used to train public LLM models, but explicitly forbidden to be used to train private models. I somehow don't think this is the end of the GPL... Yet!

blibble 4y ago
if it's fair use then it doesn't matter what's in the license Microsoft's position on Copilot is that it's fair use: > When questioned, former GNOME developer and (at the time of writing) GitHub CEO, Nat Friedman, declared publicly “(1) training ML systems on public data is fair use (2) the output belongs to the operator”. https://www.fsf.org/licensing/copilot/if-software-is-my-copilot-who-programmed-my-software https://www.fsf.org/licensing/copilot/if-software-is-my-copi...

cle 4y ago

Humans already launder GPL code by using it to learn and then producing code based on what they learned. We're very close to LLMs doing the same thing. Maybe there's some fundamental difference between humans doing that and humans programming machines to do it, but I can't see it. I don't know how GPL (or copyright in general) can survive in the long run with these technologies.

rvnx 4y ago
There is also the other way, humans are laundering AI code, and making it look like they wrote the code, to register copyright to their own name.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  Er, I'm not sure that's laundering; if a human takes AI-generated code and munges it to look human-generated, they applied enough creativity that I would expect them to legitimately have copyright on the result. I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but the bar is pretty low for qualifying.
kube-system 4y ago
I think the biggest fundamental difference is that we respect human creativity even when it is learned, because of the value in rights we ascribe to humans. It is expected and natural for humans to fairly use things they have learned as a part of an otherwise unique work. But do we ascribe the same privileges to a machine, particularly when it can be automated? The opportunity cost of the human experience itself is the reason why we even have copy rights.

renewiltord 4y ago

You can't "launder code through an LLM". You're just violating the copyright. That's like "laundering code through your clipboard". It's just a tool. You're the one responsible.

kube-system 4y ago
The case they are referencing hinges on whether use of the LLM constitutes fair use when it regurgitates someone else's code.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  I see. Thank you. The question then being whether the LLM has the right to distribute that code, makes sense.

spiralpolitik 4y ago

> however if the suit is successful: every company/individual that has used it is likely suddenly liable for millions of claims of copyright infrigement Only if you can prove that you are the copyright owner of the original work. That might be a challenge for many open source projects. Even projects that require copyright assignment might not have sufficient paperwork to prove this in a court of law. The copyright might not even have been the persons to assign in the first place. You would also face the burden of proving that the fragment that Copilot generated was sufficient to be copyrightable in the first place. The limited grammar of most programming languages would probably make proving that something was copyrightable at the function level hard. Just because the entire work was licensed under the GPL, it doesn't necessarily follow that all the individual fragments when separated out are. Outside of sampling, this is an area that the courts have largely punted on for good reason. It's a rabbit hole nobody wants to go down. Either outcome opens up a huge can of worms that I suspect nobody really wants to touch because it likely ends in mutual destruction.