[blagie]

No. There's nothing magical about GPL code. Sticking a license on code doesn't suddenly lead to astronomical damages.

No one has won billions of dollars on GPL enforcement. It's not how courts work. Contrary to popular belief, courts also won't compel compliance (e.g. releasing my code); if I break your license, the standard recourse is damages, whether that's GPL or All Rights Reserved.

Otherwise, I'd make the First Born Child license, whereby by using my code, you give me full ownership of your first born child, your home, your car, and your bank account. I could write a license like that right now, but I couldn't force you to give me your child, car, bank account, and home. If you used my code, you'd have the option to accept the license and give me those things. Or you could reject it, in which case, it's a normal copyright violation; in that case, whatever I wrote in the license is moot, and you pay damages (and stop using my code).

[drran]

In this case, exchange is not fair, it's a scam, while in case of GPL, exchange is fair (code for code), so it's a valid open contract. You use my code, I use your.

[blagie]

Fair has nothing to do with it. Contracts don't need to be fair, and often aren't. They just need consideration. If we sign a contract whereby you give me your car, bank accounts, and house, for $1, that's a valid contract.

The only part which wouldn't be valid in a contract was the first-born child. That was a joke.

Indeed, if the GPL were a contract, courts might compel compliance.

However, the GPL is not a contract, it's a license. The FSF bent over backwards to make sure the GPL/AGPL licenses wouldn't be viewed as a contract, in part to limit liability / damages / risk.

Confusingly, some EULAs are framed contracts, contrary to the acronym, and do expose users to much more risk of liability than the GPL.

The relevant part of the GPL is:

    You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
    run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work 
    occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to 
    receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing 
    other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify 
    any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept 
    this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you 
    indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

Although we often like to take a plain-text read, but that's misleading; this is legal jargon. It's one of those bits of text which needs to be explained by a lawyer, and one who specializes in both licensing and in contract law.

[drran]

> Fair has nothing to do with it. Contracts don't need to be fair, and often aren't. They just need consideration. If we sign a contract whereby you give me your car, bank accounts, and house, for $1, that's a valid contract.

It will be a gift. Gifts are valid, but they require free will of the gifting party. Gifts, without free will, can be easily canceled by court.

[IncRnd]

Copilot doesn't reuse code. None of the code it regurgitates has the required license.

[blagie]

I pasted a few segments of code I'd written in a prominent project. Copilot regurgitated paraphrased versions of the rest of that code. It'd be hard to argue it's not a derivative work.

[IncRnd]

Thank you for pointing that out!

I should have put "reuse" in quotes, since I meant copilot takes reuse one step further and replicates or regurgites code.