✨ Nora Tindall  🪐

you may have forgotten the triviality bit: copyright won't apply to a trivial bit of code -- and these all seem trivial, and you can imagine that's how the model is built: include only snippets with X000 or more appearances in the corpus cc @hipsterelectron who's also thinking

about this. i prefer the copyrighted model approach: the oracle v google case went around the structure sequence and organization of the N thousands APIs: even if individually e.g. java.math.max() isn't copyrightable, the whole body is maybe that's a better copyright argument

to say that the use of the code isn't transformative, but that the whole model has been trained on a corpus whose sets of licenses have to be respected anyway, I'd rather hear an actual lawyer talk about this one ;)

i have determined that we are absolutely fucked but feel free to wait for a lawyer to confirmhttps://twitter.com/hipsterelectron/status/1410391147868946433?s=21 …

you're allowing the “this was mediated by tech” logic confuse you: if a snippet is big enough and you have copyright on a similar enough bit of code -- the mechanism by which someone copied it doesn't matter copyright protects the expression of an idea regardless of copy method

if a large snippet is constructed by you+copilot in multiple steps and ends up looking just like someone else's, you done goofed ;) i would also like to attach to the model itself, though -- a ML model is a derivative work on its own, and i which this wasn't still being debated.

Yeah, that latter bit was my original point. It's easy to hide a derivative work generated by the model, but the model itself MUST comply with the licenses it is trying to launder.

my apologies, i noticed it earlier but ran out of characters to fully word it; yes you had mentioned it, and word it better than i did ;)