3 ms·
You don’t understand copyright. This use doesn’t need to consider “fair use” at all. Only creative expressions are copyrightable. Purely functional expressio
by randombits0 3y ago
You don’t understand copyright. This use doesn’t need to consider “fair use” at all. Only creative expressions are copyrightable. Purely functional expressions are not protected.
If the output of an AI is purely functional, there is no copyright concern as the AI did not use any copyrightable content in determining the output.
- snickerbockers 3y agoThat's cute but code has been copyrightable for decades, especially when it's Microsoft's code. >as the AI did not use any copyrightable content in determining the output. uuhhhhhh...didn't it? I thought we were talking about AI systems that are outputting code from their training sets verbatim. I don't see how you could possibly argue that the code it copies from its training set wasn't used to copy that same exact code from its training set.
- weare138 3y agoBut that doesn't address code licensing. GitHub is attempting to dance the around licensing issue by reframing the argument as a pure copyright issue. There's is no such thing as 'fair use' when it comes to licensed code unless it's implicitly granted by the license. For example you can't take GPLv3 licensed code, copypasta it into your proprietary app and call it 'fair use'. Github can't legally indemnify devs from using 3rd party licensed code.
- randombits0 3y agoThe license is entirely based on the rights of owning the copyright. You cannot (effectively) license that which cannot be copyrighted. I can certainly take GPLv3 code and plop it into my app if the code is not subject to copyright. Without the copyright, there is no license.