Hi,

you've certainly raised some interesting and important questions, as well as some deep philosophical comments. Unfortunately they're (obviously) not all things I can help with; however, some clarifications might be useful:

* The corpus of software is not part of the copilot "software" as such; it is only ever used as data, which then gets processed and reprocessed. I'm pretty sure that means it never runs afoul of any version of the (A/L/)GPL.

The main scenario where those licenses are involved is if someone asks copilot for some code and then puts that in a proprietary program.

* There are most definitely sizeable chunks of output reproduced verbatim from elsewhere (notably the fast inverse square root function, comments and all). Whether or not any are sufficiently large to attract copyright is, as you say, the interesting question.

* Simply republishing large amounts of a copyrighted work is not copyright infringement- every English-language book published in the last three decades shares a large portion of its vocabulary with any other! The question, really, is what the "chunks" that define code are.

* Copyright law does indeed differ quite a lot between countries, and you are right to think this could lead to different verdicts (that said, I'm not sure if it will; IANAL).

* GitHub's terms of service allow them to do a variety of things with user submissions only "as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time" (archival is allowed for some other purposes); it seems, depending on future developments, that there might be a case copilot is not covered by these criteria.

That said, I believe the (A/L/)GPL permit GitHub to do what they did anyway; this case might only apply to projects that make don't grant those rights separately under a license.

* It is arguably prudent to avoid hosting any code on GitHub, even perhaps after any legal issues are settled: https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html#GitHub

On 7/10/21 8:58 AM, marc wrote:
Hi

The way I understand this (I welcome corrections), is that
copilot is a piece of proprietary software which was built
using a corpus of software hosted on github.

And if I understand it properly, this corpus of software
includes code nominally released under the GPL and similar
licenses. Is my understanding correct sofar ?

I am told that copilot reproduces verbatim identifiable
chunks of the code that was loaded into its model. This
presents two interesting questions - is the model (which
is an algorithmic transformation of copyrighted material)
a new, rather than derivative work ? Are the fragments of
code reproduced by it sufficiently small to be considered
fair use ?

If I had to guess, I would answer no to both of these
questions: The pasting in is verbatim and automated,
and while individual pieces might not be large, there are
many. Fundamentally, I also would like to think that being
creative is something only a human/real intelligence
can be, otherwise the guy who wrote a program to enumerate
all melodies shorter than N would be owed sampling fees on
all new music... and few notes of music require a royalty
then a snippet of code might too ? If somebody writes an
"autocompose" equivalent to copilot, trained on existing
music, then they could expect legal action from record
labels ? And not only for the output of the "autoimprovise"
but also the model that forms the core of "autoplay" ?

But I am not qualified to provide a final answer on
that - I suppose judges will be the ones to make that
determination. Note the plural there - I am told fair
use and its equivalents differ nontrivially between
countries...

But assuming a no to those two points, github would then
(I think) rely on the terms and conditions on its site
which state that by uploading code to its site, you give
it the license to re-use your work, even in closed-source
products, apparently ?

Now: If you upload somebody else's GPLed code to github
that then implies that you (and maybe github) have
contravened the license, right ? And possibly that means
you lose your own permission to hold a copy of the GPLed
code ? Alternatively, if you are the legitimate owner of
the code, you have just dual licensed your code (with a
commercial grant to github, owned by microsoft) which is
probably not what you intended ?

Note the question marks everywhere - have I gotten my
facts wrong ? Is my reasoning incorrect ? Would it be
prudent to avoid using github for (A/L/)GPLed code until
the legalities have been settled ?

regards

marc
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct


Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Reply via email to