undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrandallsquared4y ago0 comments

Yeah, and https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o... has this language:

This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.

This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. [...]

So, it's not clear if they could charge for Copilot, given that last line, but indexing, analysis, and sharing with other users are all included.

0 comments

hvis4y ago

Reproducing copylefted code is neither indexing nor analysis.

To be clear, a piece of code that creates a copy of some GPL code is not a problem by itself. However, it's misrepresented as something the tool "generated" rather than code belonging to an existing human actor, without appropriate attribution and licensing info.

randallsquaredOP4y ago

I think we're assuming that they used GPT3 (or whatever) on code that was stored on github.com in accordance with their TOS, which means (if I understand correctly as a non-lawyer) that they didn't share it under the terms of the GPL, since they can't, but if whatever licenses the code already had attached were not sufficient, that code was also licensed to github for the purposes of indexing, analysis, and sharing with other github service users.

Does this mean that if you picked up GPL code from gnu.org and put it in your public repo, you're in violation of the GPL for illegitimately licensing that code to gihub under a non-GPL-compatible license? Maybe!

hvis4y ago

> that code was also licensed to github for the purposes of indexing, analysis, and sharing with other github service users

Even if said code was licensed to Github for sharing with other users (e.g. displaying it when another user browses the page), that doesn't mean that the same permission is given to all other users under the same conditions. Or allows them extra liberties, like using said code for purposes other than "sharing with other github service users".

randallsquaredOP4y ago

No argument, there! I'm pretty concerned about the consequences of using Copilot, legally. It all seems to turn on whether a judge or judges believe that a long sequence can be produced by "learning" rather than "copying". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

anothernewdude4y ago

It's irrelevant. There is no guarantee that the people uploading code even have the ability to grant github such a licence if they aren't the copyright holders.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

hvis4y ago

Reproducing copylefted code is neither indexing nor analysis.

randallsquaredOP4y ago

hvis4y ago

> that code was also licensed to github for the purposes of indexing, analysis, and sharing with other github service users

randallsquaredOP4y ago

anothernewdude4y ago

It's irrelevant. There is no guarantee that the people uploading code even have the ability to grant github such a licence if they aren't the copyright holders.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse