GPLed code on github (given the copilot controversy)

[Paul Schaub]

Hey,

while I can't answer your questions, here is an article by Julie Reda,
arguing that Copilot is not in fact infringing copyright and that the
copyleft movement would not benefit from stricter copyright rules:

https://juliareda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/

Regarding your question about music, there is an interesting provocative
project:

Fairuseify.ml uses a neural network to "learn" music that you upload to
it. You can then download what the network "learned" (which in my
experiments pretty much sounds like what you uploaded).

https://fairuseify.ml/

I'll watch this debate closely.

Paul

Am 10.07.21 um 10:58 schrieb marc:
> 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 at 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