3 ms·

Because there's no way the code is distributed properly according to any of the OSS licenses. In fact, it claims authorship with nonsense bylines saying the LLM

Because there's no way the code is distributed properly according to any of the OSS licenses. In fact, it claims authorship with nonsense bylines saying the LLM wrote it.

locknitpicker 6mo ago
> Because there's no way the code is distributed properly according to any of the OSS licenses. What are you talking about? There is no distribution, only read access.
- CyberDildonics 6mo ago
  What is the difference?
- evanelias 6mo ago
  Reading means downloading. Downloading is equivalent to making a copy. To make a copy of a copyrighted work, you need a license, unless your activity is fair use. Licenses have terms and conditions that must be followed, such as retaining attribution in all derivative works. That said, FOSS licenses are non-exclusive. Regarding the original upthread topic of GitHub's copilot training, iirc GitHub's terms and conditions involve granting them a license in order to host your code. Depending what else is in those terms, they may have had the ability to use all hosted code for LLM training through that license, instead of the FOSS licensing on any given Open Source repo. But that would only apply to GitHub/Microsoft, not third party scrapers.
rpdillon 6mo ago
They key issue is whether the training is considered to be fair use; but this can only be determined in court. We have some preliminary indications that it definitely can be, but also may not be, depending on four factors, but predominantly the first and fourth factor (how transformative, how it affects the market for the original works). National Law Review covered some of those nuances last year: https://natlawreview.com/article/federal-courts-issue-first-key-rulings-fair-use-defense-generative-ai-copyright https://natlawreview.com/article/federal-courts-issue-first-... US Copyright Office has a substantial document discussing each of the four factors, and making it clear this is an unanswered question, and details of the particular case will decide which way courts go. It is a prepublication version, and it's over 100 pages, but it covers the issues well, citing arguments on all sides. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...
- account42 5mo ago
  No, the key issue is whether the training is socially acceptable and sustainable. Court decisions based on pre-existing laws are only a small part of that discussion.

Because there's no way the code is distributed properly according to any of the OSS licenses. In fact, it claims authorship with nonsense bylines saying the LLM wrote it.

locknitpicker 6mo ago

> Because there's no way the code is distributed properly according to any of the OSS licenses. What are you talking about? There is no distribution, only read access.

CyberDildonics 6mo ago
What is the difference?
evanelias 6mo ago
Reading means downloading. Downloading is equivalent to making a copy. To make a copy of a copyrighted work, you need a license, unless your activity is fair use. Licenses have terms and conditions that must be followed, such as retaining attribution in all derivative works. That said, FOSS licenses are non-exclusive. Regarding the original upthread topic of GitHub's copilot training, iirc GitHub's terms and conditions involve granting them a license in order to host your code. Depending what else is in those terms, they may have had the ability to use all hosted code for LLM training through that license, instead of the FOSS licensing on any given Open Source repo. But that would only apply to GitHub/Microsoft, not third party scrapers.

rpdillon 6mo ago

They key issue is whether the training is considered to be fair use; but this can only be determined in court. We have some preliminary indications that it definitely can be, but also may not be, depending on four factors, but predominantly the first and fourth factor (how transformative, how it affects the market for the original works). National Law Review covered some of those nuances last year: https://natlawreview.com/article/federal-courts-issue-first-key-rulings-fair-use-defense-generative-ai-copyright https://natlawreview.com/article/federal-courts-issue-first-... US Copyright Office has a substantial document discussing each of the four factors, and making it clear this is an unanswered question, and details of the particular case will decide which way courts go. It is a prepublication version, and it's over 100 pages, but it covers the issues well, citing arguments on all sides. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

account42 5mo ago
No, the key issue is whether the training is socially acceptable and sustainable. Court decisions based on pre-existing laws are only a small part of that discussion.