undefined | Better HN

Skip to content

Top Best Ask Show New Jobs

0 pointsdavesque4y ago0 comments

Not without the text of the license. I, as a developer, cannot just poach open source code under MIT without including the copyright and terms from the original project. From the license:

"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

meshaneian4y ago· 3 in thread

They might argue that a snippet isn't a "substantial portion" of "the Software", and they're only charging for the service not the content - regardless, I don't like it, this is exactly what certain licenses attempt to prevent.

leereeves4y ago

I would argue that substantial shouldn't be measured in lines of code, it should be measured in importance. Something like the fast inverse square root is substantial even though it's short.

williamcotton4y ago

The fast inverse square makes for a poor example when it comes to notions of intellectual property and copyright because there is prior art. The Wikipedia page has a history.

And imagine if Microsoft had been able to copyright the fast inverse square function before Carmack sat down to write Quake!

but they used all your code to train. that's pretty substantial..

typetheorist4y ago· 1 in thread

I too have reservations about Copilot, but does the MIT license define a "substantial portion"? I doubt a snippet would fall under either "copies" or "substantial portions"

davesqueOP4y ago

I doubt many licenses define that kind of terminology. That's left to precedents established by actual cases. My point was just that you're not free to use code from an MIT-licensed project without following the terms of the license. The other details get worked out when legal actions are taken.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse