✨ Nora Tindall  🪐

I don't completely agree with you on that point. Not all open-source developers care about that. Some developers try to protect their code with a strict license, but some of them don't. As a open-source dev myself, I'm one of those who don't care about it

Okay. But I'm one who does. And I have a right to have my license respected. Yes?

Yes, but right now it isn't clear what is the boundary between what violates and what doesn't your license. If I copy a function from your code, modify it a little and use it. I would be violating your license?

That's literally what copyright law is. We are not going to rederive all of copyright law in a Twitter conversation. Stop trying to argue everything from first principles, our society has thought about this.

It hasn't. If you know a little about code copyright, you know that there is no clear direction regarding it. It is a huge gray zone. Most times it is impossible to define who was the original author of a given implementation. When we talk about entire software it is easy (+)

but breaking it into function, smaller components, it gets harder.

Of course it is a huge gray zone. What I'm saying is that this falls into that gray zone, while Microsoft is saying that it clearly doesn't. Can we agree there?

For sure! Like I've said above, I'm not against exploring this! I'm only against considering this a simple copy since it clearly isn't. We need to rethink copyright to define how machine learning algorithms fit into it.