|
|
|
|
|
by johndough
1807 days ago
|
|
For sake of discussion, it would be clearer to split copilot code (not derived from GPL'd works) and the actual weights of the neural network at the heart of copilot (derived from GPL'd works via algorithmic means). For your browser analogy, that would mean that the "browser" is the copilot code, while the weights would be some data derived from GPL'd works, perhaps a screenshot of the browser showing the code. I'd think that the weights/screenshot in this analogy would have to abide by the GPL license. In a vacuum, I would not think that the copilot code had to be licensed under GPL, but it might be different in this case since the copilot code is necessary to make use of the weights. But then again, the weights are sitting on some server, so GPL might not apply anyway. Not sure about AGPL and other licenses though. There is likely some illegal incompatibility between licenses in there. |
|
No let’s substitute a different database of for the code that isn’t SO. It doesn’t really matter if that database is a literal RDBMS, a giant git repo or is encoded as a neural net. All copilot is going to do is perform a search in that database, find a result and paste it in. The burden of licensing is still on me to not use GPL code and possibly on the person hosting the database.
The gotcha here is that copilot’s database is a neural network. If you take GPL code and feed it as training data to a neural network to create essentially a lookup table along with non-GPL code did you just create a derived work? It is unclear to me whether you did or not. In particular, can they neural network itself be considered “source code”?