| I don't think it's a clear cut as you make it out to be. Tortious interference is a common law remedy that might make Github/MS liable. If I induce you to break a contract with someone else they can come after me for damages. For example in this case, there are developers who have created GPL code. That code was licensed to some other developer. Github then encouraged people to upload git copies of the GPL code onto github where it was put into the model. That model contains the copyrighted materials and isn't coming with the necessary notices. The output of the model can be code that is a direct stand in for the copyrighted work. Thus Github have become a party to breaking the license even though they themselves never agreed to the GPL. In addition Github are encouraging (They are advertising it and making it available broadly) other developers to copy that code and use it in their project. Again that's encouraging an action that breaks a contract. Github is well aware that this is likely happening and they continue on. Thus they might be liable. You also might be liable. All of these things can and likely will be argued before courts but it's not at all one sided. > That's been established in court with regards to training AIs. What are you basing the certainty of this statement on? The case law I have seen around this is pretty spotty. Cases around training on copyrighted materials have predominately been about the input, and not the output. With the final output usually being controlled by the model owner. For example Google obtained the books they scanned legally then used them to produce google books' index. There are some major differences. - The books were purchased, meaning they got a license to use the book. There's for sure code in the model that Github does not legally have the right to use. They are aware of this. Making the input more shaky for github.
- Github is making a direct profit off of this service. It's a revenue generating enterprise. That's important since it raises the bar of what they can be expected to do. There's been nothing that goes to the supreme court yet; it's all per circuit and not settled case law. Also this gets WAAAAY more complex when we start talking about outside of the US and isn't decided at all. These things are complex and likely you need your lawyer to advise you with any real questions. |
This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't think that is correct.
Most books I've seen don't say anything about granting a license so there would be no explicit license that comes with them.
Maybe you could find an implicit license if normal use of a book required a license but it does not. Copyright law allows all the normal uses of a book without requiring permission of the copyright owner. You only need a license when you want to do something that requires permission.