4 ms·

Isn’t “rewrite the example code in your own style” accepted best practice for human coders, when working from an example that does what you need? I’m not sure

by taneq 3y ago

Isn’t “rewrite the example code in your own style” accepted best practice for human coders, when working from an example that does what you need? I’m not sure what would be acceptable output for a code generation tool if rewriting the examples isn’t ok and reimplementing something that performs the same function still isn’t ok. Are we automatically granting de-facto code patents on all published code now?

jazzyjackson 3y ago
"Isn’t “rewrite the example code in your own style” accepted best practice [...]?" Why would it be? If a function performs the data transform I need you better believe i'm copy pasting that sucker with a hyperlink to where I found it But then again, I'm not trying to win in court.
- rolph 3y ago
  what would happen without that hyperlink? the overall issue seems to be a lack of attribution to the originator.
  - patmcc 3y ago
    That depends a lot on the license - some require attribution, some don't, some care not a bit (in that they don't permit copying).
l__l 3y ago
The point here is that this isn't some example from a textbook or even stack overflow, but licensed pieces of work with all the legal complications that come with that. This is about the potential use of this code in proprietary code (or code otherwise incompatible with the original licenses), and I really don't think anyone would say it is "accepted best practice" to copy out someone else's work you find online, licenses be damned, in a professional setting.
- 542458 3y ago
  > this isn't some example from a textbook or even stack overflow, but licensed pieces of work with all the legal complications that come with that I understand why these might feel different to you, but textbooks and stack overflow are also proprietary, licensed pieces of work. I don’t see why there would be much of a legal distinction.
- salawat 3y ago
  No, you're missing the point. There are two worlds. In one, everytime someone publishes code with a license attached, they've taken a chunk out of the set of valid lines of software capable of being permissibly written without license encumberance. This is the world the poster you are replying to is imagining we're headed toward, and this case basically does a fantastic job of laying a test case/precedent for. The other world, is one where everyone accepts all programming code is math, and copyrighting things is like erecting artificial barriers to facilitate information asymmetry. I.e. trying to own 2 + 2. In this second hypothetical world, we summarily reject IP as a thing. The 2nd world is what I'd rather live in, as the first truly feels more and more like hell to me. However, given the first one is the world we're in, I'd like to see the mental gymnastics employed to undermine Microsoft's original software philosophy. EDIT: Voir dire will be a hoot. Any wagers on how many software people make it onto the jury if any?
  - l__l 3y ago
    I'm don't think this dichotomy is at all fair. Just because someone makes a piece of software public does not mean they want it freely copied, and I think that can be a completely reasonable stance to have. I'm struggling to make sense of your argument unless you believe either: - Code is not intellectual property; I don't see this as easily defensible. It takes time, effort, and in some cases seriously heavy resources to come up with some of the tech companies rely on. Should all private companies rescind copyright on literally everything their staff write? - Intellectual property is a nonsense concept altogether; in this case, I don't think you're ever going to get your way in the court of public opinion.
    - 3y ago
rolph 3y ago
proper attribution to the writer seems to be a big part of this. there is also suggestion ms knows, all about it but passes the liability buck to the end user of copilot suggestions. [Lawyer and developer Matthew Butterick announced last month that he'd teamed up with the Joseph Saveri Law Firm to investigate Copilot. They wanted to know if and how the software infringed upon the legal rights of coders by scraping and emitting their work without proper attribution under current open-source licenses.] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/07/in_brief_ai/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/07/in_brief_ai/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/19/github_copilot_copyright/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/19/github_copilot_copyri...
waboremo 3y ago
I can't recall a single time that's been common advice given to programmers. It's usually either don't reinvent the wheel (therefore use the source while adhering to license), or come up with your own solution. Don't know how you would even write code in your own style. As soon as you start altering it, the result is different. It's more/less efficient.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  I interpreted the comment you are responding to as “make sure it uses the same style conventions as the rest of this file”, which is something that Copilot does very well!
- njharman 3y ago
  Depending on language there are ton of style choices. There’s style guides as examples of trivial. Non trivial include names, comments, logging, error checking, structure, ordering of operations that aren’t sequential.
  - waboremo 3y ago
    Yes, but all of those have impact to the actual function and performance of the proposed solution. By doing so, you are changing the solution. Look at FizzBuzz. If you were to set strict requirements on performance (and allow for reiterative testing), the results from different groups of people would be identical. They would reach the same conclusion because that's how code works, it's far more aligned to math than it is creative writing. So you cannot take an existing code solution and translate it to your own style. You are altering the program, the efficiency, and therefore the solution itself. Even when you do something like changing 1 single variable name!
- mistrial9 3y ago
  this comment really hits hard for me -- its like there is a place to buy food where every menu item is clearly shown, with a large color picture and a printed price.. and the person talking has only every purchased food in that way.. as if there are no alternatives that "really exist" there really are a lot of other scenarios that involve writing software, to make software. Its not possible to list them all.. the list changes while I type
layer8 3y ago
Mitigating copyright issues by “rewriting in your own style” arguably only applies to humans doing the rewriting as a creative task, because copyright only applies to human creative works.

by taneq 3y ago

jazzyjackson 3y ago

"Isn’t “rewrite the example code in your own style” accepted best practice [...]?" Why would it be? If a function performs the data transform I need you better believe i'm copy pasting that sucker with a hyperlink to where I found it But then again, I'm not trying to win in court.

rolph 3y ago
what would happen without that hyperlink? the overall issue seems to be a lack of attribution to the originator.
- patmcc 3y ago
  That depends a lot on the license - some require attribution, some don't, some care not a bit (in that they don't permit copying).

l__l 3y ago

The point here is that this isn't some example from a textbook or even stack overflow, but licensed pieces of work with all the legal complications that come with that. This is about the potential use of this code in proprietary code (or code otherwise incompatible with the original licenses), and I really don't think anyone would say it is "accepted best practice" to copy out someone else's work you find online, licenses be damned, in a professional setting.

542458 3y ago
> this isn't some example from a textbook or even stack overflow, but licensed pieces of work with all the legal complications that come with that I understand why these might feel different to you, but textbooks and stack overflow are also proprietary, licensed pieces of work. I don’t see why there would be much of a legal distinction.
salawat 3y ago
No, you're missing the point. There are two worlds. In one, everytime someone publishes code with a license attached, they've taken a chunk out of the set of valid lines of software capable of being permissibly written without license encumberance. This is the world the poster you are replying to is imagining we're headed toward, and this case basically does a fantastic job of laying a test case/precedent for. The other world, is one where everyone accepts all programming code is math, and copyrighting things is like erecting artificial barriers to facilitate information asymmetry. I.e. trying to own 2 + 2. In this second hypothetical world, we summarily reject IP as a thing. The 2nd world is what I'd rather live in, as the first truly feels more and more like hell to me. However, given the first one is the world we're in, I'd like to see the mental gymnastics employed to undermine Microsoft's original software philosophy. EDIT: Voir dire will be a hoot. Any wagers on how many software people make it onto the jury if any?
- l__l 3y ago
  I'm don't think this dichotomy is at all fair. Just because someone makes a piece of software public does not mean they want it freely copied, and I think that can be a completely reasonable stance to have. I'm struggling to make sense of your argument unless you believe either: - Code is not intellectual property; I don't see this as easily defensible. It takes time, effort, and in some cases seriously heavy resources to come up with some of the tech companies rely on. Should all private companies rescind copyright on literally everything their staff write? - Intellectual property is a nonsense concept altogether; in this case, I don't think you're ever going to get your way in the court of public opinion.
  - 3y ago

rolph 3y ago

proper attribution to the writer seems to be a big part of this. there is also suggestion ms knows, all about it but passes the liability buck to the end user of copilot suggestions. [Lawyer and developer Matthew Butterick announced last month that he'd teamed up with the Joseph Saveri Law Firm to investigate Copilot. They wanted to know if and how the software infringed upon the legal rights of coders by scraping and emitting their work without proper attribution under current open-source licenses.] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/07/in_brief_ai/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/07/in_brief_ai/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/19/github_copilot_copyright/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/19/github_copilot_copyri...

waboremo 3y ago

I can't recall a single time that's been common advice given to programmers. It's usually either don't reinvent the wheel (therefore use the source while adhering to license), or come up with your own solution. Don't know how you would even write code in your own style. As soon as you start altering it, the result is different. It's more/less efficient.

williamcotton 3y ago
I interpreted the comment you are responding to as “make sure it uses the same style conventions as the rest of this file”, which is something that Copilot does very well!
njharman 3y ago
Depending on language there are ton of style choices. There’s style guides as examples of trivial. Non trivial include names, comments, logging, error checking, structure, ordering of operations that aren’t sequential.
- waboremo 3y ago
  Yes, but all of those have impact to the actual function and performance of the proposed solution. By doing so, you are changing the solution. Look at FizzBuzz. If you were to set strict requirements on performance (and allow for reiterative testing), the results from different groups of people would be identical. They would reach the same conclusion because that's how code works, it's far more aligned to math than it is creative writing. So you cannot take an existing code solution and translate it to your own style. You are altering the program, the efficiency, and therefore the solution itself. Even when you do something like changing 1 single variable name!
mistrial9 3y ago
this comment really hits hard for me -- its like there is a place to buy food where every menu item is clearly shown, with a large color picture and a printed price.. and the person talking has only every purchased food in that way.. as if there are no alternatives that "really exist" there really are a lot of other scenarios that involve writing software, to make software. Its not possible to list them all.. the list changes while I type

layer8 3y ago

Mitigating copyright issues by “rewriting in your own style” arguably only applies to humans doing the rewriting as a creative task, because copyright only applies to human creative works.