B) "parts of" copyright works are not themselves sufficient to constitute a copyright violation. The violation must be a substantial reproduction. While it's up to the court to determine if the alleged infringements demonstrated in the suit (I'm sure far more will be submitted if this case moves forward) meet this bar, from what I've seen none of them have.
Historically the bar is pretty high for software, hundreds or thousands of lines depending on use case. A purely mechanical description of an operation is not sufficient for copyright, you cannot copyright an implementation of a matrix transformation in isolation no matter what license you slap on the repo. Recall that the recent Google v Oracle case was litigated over tens of thousands of lines of code and found to be fair use because of the context of those lines.
I've yet to see a demonstrated case of Copilot generating code that is both non-transformative and represents a significant reproduction of the source work.
The weights of the Copilot very likely contain verbatim parts of the copyrighted code, just like in a zip archive. It chooses semi-randomly which parts to show and sometimes breaks copyright by displaying large enough pieces.
