3 ms·

> 1. Isn't that akin to destruction of evidence?

ADeerAppeared 2y ago
Legally? No. In spirit? ... Probably? Unlike most LLMs, Github copilot can trivially solve their copyright problem by just using only code they have the right to reproduce. They have a giant corpus of code tagged with license, SELECT BY license MIT/Equivalent and you're done, problem solved because those licenses explicitly grant permission for this kind of reuse. (It's still not very cash money to take open source work for commercial gain without paying the original authors, and there's a humorous question if MIT-copilot would need to come with a multi-gigabyte attribution file, but everyone widely agrees it's legal and permitted.) The only reason you'd hack a filter on top rather than doing the above is if you'd want to hide the copyright problem. It's an objectively worse solution.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Spivak 2y ago
  > Unlike most LLMs, Github copilot can trivially solve their copyright problem by just using only code they have the right to reproduce. Absolutely not trivial, in fact completely impossible by computer alone. You can't determine if you have the right to reproduce a piece of code just by looking at the code and tags themselves. *Taps the color-of-your-bits sign.* * I can fork a GPL project on Github and replace the license file with MIT. Okay to reproduce? * If I license my project as MIT but it includes code I copied inappropriately and don't have the right to reproduce myself, can Github? (No) This one is why indemnity clauses exist on contracted works. * I create a git repo for work and select the MIT license but I don't actually own the copyright on that code and so that license is worthless.
- gkbrk 2y ago
  There is no difference when it comes to MIT and GPL here. If your model outputs my MIT licensed code, you still need to provide attribution in the form of a copyright notice as required by the MIT license.
- sleepybrett 2y ago
  Have the copyleft people, or anyone else, produced some boilerplate licenses that explicitly deny use in training models?
abigail95 2y ago
Not in any way I'm aware of - and would be required if they were served a DMCA notification/Cease and Desist against a specific prompt. The people that think Copilot is infringng their copyright would be happy with that I would think? Unless they take a much stricter definition of fair use than current courts do.
tpmoney 2y ago
No more so than scanner/printer manufacturers adding tech to prevent you from scanning and printing currency is destruction of evidence that they are in fact producing illegal machines for counterfeiting.
bawolff 2y ago
I would think it is pretty obviously not. Is taking away a drunk driver's keys (before they get in the car) destruction of the evidence of their drunk driving?
- squarefoot 2y ago
  This is not what I meant. By placing a copyright filter and claiming it never happened (please read the line I was replying to) before the system can be audited, they're indeed taking away the drunk driver's keys, which is a good thing, but also removing the offending car before Police arrives.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    In this metaphor, removing the car of someone who was going to drink and drive but didn't, is certainly not a crime. Presumably though you mean removing the car after drunk driving actually took place - which might be, but probably depends a lot on if the person knew, and what the intent of the action was. In the current case - its unclear if any crime took place at all, it seems clear that the primary intent was to prevent future crime not hide evidence of past ones. Most importantly the past version of the app is not destroyed (presumably). Github still has the version of the software without the copyright filter. If relavent and appropriate, the court could order them to produce the original version. It can't be destroying evidence if the evidence was not destroyed.
    - squarefoot 2y ago
      Yes, sorta. We're talking about software, therefore a piece of code that does something programmatically isn't like the drunk driver in a car that may cause more accidents, and although we aren't sure about that we prevent him/her to drive anyway just to be safe. The software would most certainly repeat its routine because it has be written to do so, that's why I wondered about destruction of evidence; by removing/modifying it, or placing filters, they would prevent it from repeating the wrongdoing, but also take away any means of auditing the software to find what happened and why.

Legally? No. In spirit? ... Probably? Unlike most LLMs, Github copilot can trivially solve their copyright problem by just using only code they have the right to reproduce. They have a giant corpus of code tagged with license, SELECT BY license MIT/Equivalent and you're done, problem solved because those licenses explicitly grant permission for this kind of reuse. (It's still not very cash money to take open source work for commercial gain without paying the original authors, and there's a humorous question if MIT-copilot would need to come with a multi-gigabyte attribution file, but everyone widely agrees it's legal and permitted.) The only reason you'd hack a filter on top rather than doing the above is if you'd want to hide the copyright problem. It's an objectively worse solution.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Spivak 2y ago
> Unlike most LLMs, Github copilot can trivially solve their copyright problem by just using only code they have the right to reproduce. Absolutely not trivial, in fact completely impossible by computer alone. You can't determine if you have the right to reproduce a piece of code just by looking at the code and tags themselves. *Taps the color-of-your-bits sign.* * I can fork a GPL project on Github and replace the license file with MIT. Okay to reproduce? * If I license my project as MIT but it includes code I copied inappropriately and don't have the right to reproduce myself, can Github? (No) This one is why indemnity clauses exist on contracted works. * I create a git repo for work and select the MIT license but I don't actually own the copyright on that code and so that license is worthless.
gkbrk 2y ago
There is no difference when it comes to MIT and GPL here. If your model outputs my MIT licensed code, you still need to provide attribution in the form of a copyright notice as required by the MIT license.
sleepybrett 2y ago
Have the copyleft people, or anyone else, produced some boilerplate licenses that explicitly deny use in training models?

abigail95 2y ago

Not in any way I'm aware of - and would be required if they were served a DMCA notification/Cease and Desist against a specific prompt. The people that think Copilot is infringng their copyright would be happy with that I would think? Unless they take a much stricter definition of fair use than current courts do.

tpmoney 2y ago

No more so than scanner/printer manufacturers adding tech to prevent you from scanning and printing currency is destruction of evidence that they are in fact producing illegal machines for counterfeiting.

bawolff 2y ago

I would think it is pretty obviously not. Is taking away a drunk driver's keys (before they get in the car) destruction of the evidence of their drunk driving?

squarefoot 2y ago
This is not what I meant. By placing a copyright filter and claiming it never happened (please read the line I was replying to) before the system can be audited, they're indeed taking away the drunk driver's keys, which is a good thing, but also removing the offending car before Police arrives.
- bawolff 2y ago
  In this metaphor, removing the car of someone who was going to drink and drive but didn't, is certainly not a crime. Presumably though you mean removing the car after drunk driving actually took place - which might be, but probably depends a lot on if the person knew, and what the intent of the action was. In the current case - its unclear if any crime took place at all, it seems clear that the primary intent was to prevent future crime not hide evidence of past ones. Most importantly the past version of the app is not destroyed (presumably). Github still has the version of the software without the copyright filter. If relavent and appropriate, the court could order them to produce the original version. It can't be destroying evidence if the evidence was not destroyed.
  - squarefoot 2y ago
    Yes, sorta. We're talking about software, therefore a piece of code that does something programmatically isn't like the drunk driver in a car that may cause more accidents, and although we aren't sure about that we prevent him/her to drive anyway just to be safe. The software would most certainly repeat its routine because it has be written to do so, that's why I wondered about destruction of evidence; by removing/modifying it, or placing filters, they would prevent it from repeating the wrongdoing, but also take away any means of auditing the software to find what happened and why.