it's official, obeying copyright is only for the plebs and proles, rich people and big companies can do whatever they want
@tindall I would expect someone to challange that, I think it’s an interesting question.
Regardless of that I’d love to see consequences for a big company like Github that just takes all their public code, including projects with restrictive licenses, and makes it into a project of their own. Earning money on other people’s (or even their customers’) achievements.
Here I read about this: https://drewdevault.com/2021/07/04/Is-GitHub-a-derivative-work.html
Here's qute from https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitation
"During GitHub Copilot’s early development, nearly 300 employees used it in their daily work as part of an internal trial."
@tindall @irimi1 Is the issue that Github have trained their AI on publicly available text? I'm not sure that would be a copyright violation - after all the original work has merely been read, temporarily copied; it hasn't been redistributed under a false licence.
If mere reading and temporary processing can constitute copyvio, then disability readers, translation, search engines would be in trouble.
@AgreeableLandscape second result of "copilot GPL verbatim" on Google:
@clacke @tindall @irimi1 As mentioned before, the issue is that Copilot most likely stores third party code in its knowledge base, as they generate snippets verbatim from existing codebases. This would meet the (A)GPL's requirement for derivative works, which would require the entire codebase to be released.
@tindall eh, no. There is a datamining exception, that allows this kind of thing:
And it's important and useful, for scientists and investigative journalists.
It also happens to be useful for Microsoft Github Copilot here. And I share your frustration about this. The problem is: it's really difficult to make it not useful for Microsofts of this world without a lot of blocking scientific research and investigative journalism.
@tindall that is obviously still a conversation worth having, though!
Still, Microsoft Copilot does seem to infringe every now and then, when it quotes verbatim full passages from certain pieces of code:
*That's* where Microsoft needs to get smacked hard for copyright infringement and licensing violations!
@Shamar @rysiek @tindall @chebra I talked with her on Twitter (in German) and she wasn’t even aware that Copilot reproduced Quake’s Inverse Square Root Hack, including the “// What the fuck?” comment. And what she said about no copyright would be better for copyleft is plain BS: Then everybody would be able to only distribute binaries.
@eriol @tindall @rysiek i mean, the model itself is something new. However if you take a painted picture and extract the style, then the style itself is not copyrighted, but if teach that style to someone and they reproduce the image the style was originating from, it should still be a copyright issue, because that's a derived work.
So while copilot is probably not under (A)GPL, its results might be. A legal minefield.
@eriol @tindall @rysiek Reminder: Software licenses are based on copyright law which is based on the concept of creative work. Copyright infringement can happen with the *output* of a creative process e.g. distributing code written with the help of Copyalot. Training an AI kernel is besides the point.