5 ms·

You can now launder GPL code with the confidence that Microsoft's world class legal team will have your back if you're sued for it.

CameronNemo 3y ago
I don't know why it is just GPL people talk about. MPL, Apache, MIT licenses all have additional terms beyond a basic public domain equivalent license. None of those terms are being respected.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  I agree with your point, I'm just using the GPL as an example of a license people tend to know the stipulations of.
- eyelidlessness 3y ago
  Not OP and I don’t really comment on the topic much at all, but one reason I would expect more talk about GPL than those permissive licenses: I would also expect a greater likelihood of murky infringement cases becoming a legal matter. Just a hunch, possibly a very wrong one, mostly informed by how I’d evaluate choosing among these licenses.
- adastra22 3y ago
  Compliance with MIT/X11 license just requires distributing the license file with the binary. If you infringe, it is trivial and costless to correct. Copyleft licenses are more troublesome for those who would rather not release source code. GPL is being used as a stand-in for all copyleft licenses.
  - CameronNemo 3y ago
    It is not costless to correct if you don't know who's code was an input in the first place.
    - wtallis 3y ago
      It's intractable to preemptively avoid all possible copyright claims, but correcting them after being called out on it only requires adding the license and attribution required by whoever's currently suing you.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- frognumber 3y ago
  Yes... and no... Courts -- under common law jurisdictions -- don't interpret contracts and licenses literally. If you stick within the spirit of a license or contract, you might be okay (even if you break the letter), and vice-versa. Beyond that, it's a question of damages and consequences. Omitting a warranty disclaimer isn't likely to result in a lot of damages. And finally, there are odds of getting sued. If you infringe on my AGPL code, I'll be pissed. I used that license for a reason. On the other hand, I /hope/ my MIT-licensed code is reused in commercial products. If you infringe on some term, I probably won't care. There's a lot more nuance than that, starting with statutory law jurisdictions like France to things like statutory damages, and I'm intentionally oversimplifying. However, from a 10,000 foot view infringing on the GPL versus on an MIT license are very different beasts, and there's good reason to be a lot more worried about the former.
  - CameronNemo 3y ago
    A warranty disclaimer is important, and there can certainly be damages argued. Also important is attribution.
- hyperman1 3y ago
  If you upload it to github, you give microsoft extra rights above the license you choose. I'm not sure they are bound by the license.
  - WCSTombs 3y ago
    Those "extra rights" would need to be spelled out in the terms of service, and last I checked, they were basically just making sure GitHub had the legal right to host your code on the GitHub service. It did not include any provision to create and distribute derivative works outside the license included with the software being hosted.
    - hyperman1 3y ago
      I read https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#d-user-generated-content https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... Chapter D4 gives microsoft the right to: parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers I don't know what a real court says, but I can imagine a lawyer saying training an AI is done by analyzing your code. Chapter D5 gives almost anybody right to do a lot with your code, including creating derived works, as long as it happens on github. If the AI training happens on their servers, I think you agreed to them training an AI. Not saying they are doing it right now based on that document. But I do assume a lawyer has enough material to make the waters really muddy, and a trial being decide by basically a dice roll.
  - bobthecowboy 3y ago
    This is nonsense. The uploader is not necessarily the copyright holder of the code. The uploader is not necessarily in a position to grant extra rights above the actual license. What happens if someone else uploads my code to github? What happens if proprietary code is uploaded to github? What happens if national secrets are posted to github? In all of those cases, the person doing the upload does not "own" the content, nor did they choose the license. There is no reasonable read of a ToS agreement that would allow Microsoft/Github extra rights to that content.
layer8 3y ago
One can only hope that this will work better than their software support. I wonder how customers will have to prove that the contested code was actually output by Copilot.
gjsman-1000 3y ago
This is the same website that rejoiced when Oracle v Google resulted in a Google victory, despite Google arguably doing similar. They did so with 11,000 lines of Oracle's code, but it was decided to be fair use. If that's the case... I don't think a regurgitation of 12 lines of GPL code by accident here and there will be a strong argument against fair use. Adding to that: How many people here actually abide by the StackOverflow contribution license of CC-BY-SA when copying and pasting code from there? ;)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Scaevolus 3y ago
  11,000 lines of _declaring_ code-- the API signatures.
  - seanhandley 3y ago
    Defining the “what” is just as much a part of the intellectual property as defining the “how”. Both things are hard to do well IMHO
    - wtallis 3y ago
      > Both things are hard to do well IMHO That's not really a factor in determining what's eligible for copyright protection.
      - seanhandley 3y ago
        Indeed. They’re both eligible.
  - jiofj 3y ago
    The API signatures were arguably the only thing that mattered.
    - 3y ago
tick_tock_tick 3y ago
Why would you need to launder? The output isn't under GPL to begin with. This is just so small teams can use it without having to deal with all the frivolous lawsuits.
paxys 3y ago
Good. Screw companies trying to assert copyright over 10 line functions that reverse a string.
- bdowling 3y ago
  Those kind of functions are arguably not even eligible for copyright protection because they contain no human expression of the kind that is usually protectable (e.g., creative writings, artistic works).
adverbly 3y ago
Obviously it wouldn't be so straightforward. Microsoft would have access to your usage history, and would be able to easily prove your intended theft as a user if any of your prompts or usage history made it clear that you were attempting to subvert a license. If anything, this temporarily shifts the battleground out of the courts and into prompt engineering space. It would need to look like an accident for a bad actor to pull this off.
- itsoktocry 3y ago
  >would be able to easily prove Possible, perhaps. But what makes you think this is easily provable? Intent is hard at the best of times.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    I would consider it on you to demonstrate that you can get Copilot to produce copyrighted content without obviously asking for it.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      You're asking them to go and use copilot with the intention of showing that copilot can be used to unintentionally infringe on copyright? That sounds pretty tricky.
circuit10 3y ago
This only applies if you use the filters they have that prevent code from being copied directly, so that shouldn’t be likely to happen
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jojo100 3y ago
Good.

CameronNemo 3y ago

I don't know why it is just GPL people talk about. MPL, Apache, MIT licenses all have additional terms beyond a basic public domain equivalent license. None of those terms are being respected.

heavyset_go 3y ago
I agree with your point, I'm just using the GPL as an example of a license people tend to know the stipulations of.
eyelidlessness 3y ago
Not OP and I don’t really comment on the topic much at all, but one reason I would expect more talk about GPL than those permissive licenses: I would also expect a greater likelihood of murky infringement cases becoming a legal matter. Just a hunch, possibly a very wrong one, mostly informed by how I’d evaluate choosing among these licenses.
adastra22 3y ago
Compliance with MIT/X11 license just requires distributing the license file with the binary. If you infringe, it is trivial and costless to correct. Copyleft licenses are more troublesome for those who would rather not release source code. GPL is being used as a stand-in for all copyleft licenses.
- CameronNemo 3y ago
  It is not costless to correct if you don't know who's code was an input in the first place.
  - wtallis 3y ago
    It's intractable to preemptively avoid all possible copyright claims, but correcting them after being called out on it only requires adding the license and attribution required by whoever's currently suing you.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
frognumber 3y ago
Yes... and no... Courts -- under common law jurisdictions -- don't interpret contracts and licenses literally. If you stick within the spirit of a license or contract, you might be okay (even if you break the letter), and vice-versa. Beyond that, it's a question of damages and consequences. Omitting a warranty disclaimer isn't likely to result in a lot of damages. And finally, there are odds of getting sued. If you infringe on my AGPL code, I'll be pissed. I used that license for a reason. On the other hand, I /hope/ my MIT-licensed code is reused in commercial products. If you infringe on some term, I probably won't care. There's a lot more nuance than that, starting with statutory law jurisdictions like France to things like statutory damages, and I'm intentionally oversimplifying. However, from a 10,000 foot view infringing on the GPL versus on an MIT license are very different beasts, and there's good reason to be a lot more worried about the former.
- CameronNemo 3y ago
  A warranty disclaimer is important, and there can certainly be damages argued. Also important is attribution.
hyperman1 3y ago
If you upload it to github, you give microsoft extra rights above the license you choose. I'm not sure they are bound by the license.
- WCSTombs 3y ago
  Those "extra rights" would need to be spelled out in the terms of service, and last I checked, they were basically just making sure GitHub had the legal right to host your code on the GitHub service. It did not include any provision to create and distribute derivative works outside the license included with the software being hosted.
  - hyperman1 3y ago
    I read https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#d-user-generated-content https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... Chapter D4 gives microsoft the right to: parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers I don't know what a real court says, but I can imagine a lawyer saying training an AI is done by analyzing your code. Chapter D5 gives almost anybody right to do a lot with your code, including creating derived works, as long as it happens on github. If the AI training happens on their servers, I think you agreed to them training an AI. Not saying they are doing it right now based on that document. But I do assume a lawyer has enough material to make the waters really muddy, and a trial being decide by basically a dice roll.
- bobthecowboy 3y ago
  This is nonsense. The uploader is not necessarily the copyright holder of the code. The uploader is not necessarily in a position to grant extra rights above the actual license. What happens if someone else uploads my code to github? What happens if proprietary code is uploaded to github? What happens if national secrets are posted to github? In all of those cases, the person doing the upload does not "own" the content, nor did they choose the license. There is no reasonable read of a ToS agreement that would allow Microsoft/Github extra rights to that content.

layer8 3y ago

One can only hope that this will work better than their software support. I wonder how customers will have to prove that the contested code was actually output by Copilot.

gjsman-1000 3y ago

This is the same website that rejoiced when Oracle v Google resulted in a Google victory, despite Google arguably doing similar. They did so with 11,000 lines of Oracle's code, but it was decided to be fair use. If that's the case... I don't think a regurgitation of 12 lines of GPL code by accident here and there will be a strong argument against fair use. Adding to that: How many people here actually abide by the StackOverflow contribution license of CC-BY-SA when copying and pasting code from there? ;)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Scaevolus 3y ago
11,000 lines of _declaring_ code-- the API signatures.
- seanhandley 3y ago
  Defining the “what” is just as much a part of the intellectual property as defining the “how”. Both things are hard to do well IMHO
  - wtallis 3y ago
    > Both things are hard to do well IMHO That's not really a factor in determining what's eligible for copyright protection.
    - seanhandley 3y ago
      Indeed. They’re both eligible.
- jiofj 3y ago
  The API signatures were arguably the only thing that mattered.
  - 3y ago

tick_tock_tick 3y ago

Why would you need to launder? The output isn't under GPL to begin with. This is just so small teams can use it without having to deal with all the frivolous lawsuits.

paxys 3y ago

Good. Screw companies trying to assert copyright over 10 line functions that reverse a string.

bdowling 3y ago
Those kind of functions are arguably not even eligible for copyright protection because they contain no human expression of the kind that is usually protectable (e.g., creative writings, artistic works).

adverbly 3y ago

Obviously it wouldn't be so straightforward. Microsoft would have access to your usage history, and would be able to easily prove your intended theft as a user if any of your prompts or usage history made it clear that you were attempting to subvert a license. If anything, this temporarily shifts the battleground out of the courts and into prompt engineering space. It would need to look like an accident for a bad actor to pull this off.

itsoktocry 3y ago
>would be able to easily prove Possible, perhaps. But what makes you think this is easily provable? Intent is hard at the best of times.
- justrealist 3y ago
  I would consider it on you to demonstrate that you can get Copilot to produce copyrighted content without obviously asking for it.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    You're asking them to go and use copilot with the intention of showing that copilot can be used to unintentionally infringe on copyright? That sounds pretty tricky.

circuit10 3y ago

This only applies if you use the filters they have that prevent code from being copied directly, so that shouldn’t be likely to happen

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jojo100 3y ago

Good.