GPLed code on github (given the copilot controversy)

[Michael Pöhn]

Maybe future versions of GPL could cover this with an extended copyleft 
clause. I think it would be justified that software like copilot 
(including their datasets) also get GPL'd if they build on top of GPL 
source-code.

br. Michael

On 10.07.21 10:58, marc wrote:
> 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 ?
> alsoalsoalso
> 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