[rmbyrro]

Please, read my comment again.

I did not say it forces you to distribute it. That's absurd.

What I said is: "if you incorporate GPL code and distribute it"

If you do those two things, yes, you have to license your code under GPL.

It's not me saying, please take a look at Section 5-b and 5-c of the license. [1]

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#section5

[blip54321]

stale2002 read your comment correctly. stale2002 responded to it correctly. No one is arguing with you about what the GPL says.

Let's do an experiment: You need to hit yourself repeatedly in the head with a mallet until you pass out.

Are you currently hitting yourself with a mallet until you pass out? No. Just because something is written doesn't mean you need to do it. If I incorporate your GPL code, distribute it, and don't license my code under the GPL, that means I'm distributing code without a license (or breaking a license). Unless I've crossed the line for criminal prosecution (which is far from anything we're discussing here), the worst-case consequence of that is .... damages.

If I've crossed the line into criminal prosecution, then the consequence is damages and jail time. I absolutely STILL do not need to license my code under the GPL.

(In most cases, it's a good idea to license code under the GPL, though, both due to branding/reputation damage, and since usually that leads to an out-of-court settlement; but those carry no legal force being that)

[price]

> Unless I've crossed the line for criminal prosecution (which is far from anything we're discussing here), the worst-case consequence of that is .... damages.

This is not how the law works. In addition to damages, if you're a party to a civil lawsuit then a court can order you to do something. This is called an "injunction".

For example, if I write something and you start selling copies of it without permission, and I sue you over your copyright infringement, a court can and will order you to stop. Copyright has teeth like that.

If the thing you were selling was your product -- based illegally on my GPL'd code -- then that may be a lot worse for you than some damages.

[blip54321]

I this case, an injunction doesn't force me to do anything. It prevents me from doing something, namely distributing the 10 lines of copilot-regurgitated GPL code in my program.

The solution to that is to remove or replace those lines.

That's not worse than damages. That's just table stakes. That's expected no matter what happens. If I had a few lines of GPL code in a proprietary code base, I'd do that the day it was discovered.

To understand the frequency of injunctions, have a look at this test:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction#Permanent_injunctio...

Injunctions generally only happens if other means (like damages) have been exhausted.

[rmbyrro]

Are you suggesting we can use OSS and not follow the terms required by its license?

If not, then you do have to license your entire work under GPL if you incorporate GPL code and distribute it.

If yes, what kind of environment do you think you're promoting? Is it positive for the development of the industry, and to society in general?

[blip54321]

> Are you suggesting we can use OSS and not follow the terms required by its license?

"can" is a complex question. You can do anything you want, but actions have consequences. I can buy a gun and shoot someone. The consequence is that I might spend the rest of my life in prison. I can fart in a crowded elevator. The consequence is that people will look at me funny, and might dislike me.

Consequences should be proportional to the action.

If farting in an elevator lead to life in prison, or if shooting someone led to people looking at me funny, things wouldn't work very well.

> If not, then you do have to license your entire work under GPL if you incorporate GPL code and distribute it.

No. This is not a proportional consequence. If a random developer incorporates 10 lines of GPL code into Windows, Microsoft doesn't need to license Windows under the AGPL. That's not how our legal system is set up.

Microsoft has to remove the code and pay damages.

> If yes, what kind of environment do you think you're promoting? Is it positive for the development of the industry, and to society in general?

The logic you're suggesting -- is not only incorrect -- but would lead to an environment where people have an irrational fear of "viral" licenses. They're intentionally not viral. They don't infect code. Releasing your code is one option for remedy, but not one the GPL author can force. The FSF went over backwards to design the license like that.

Damages and removing code is an appropriate consequence. It's adequate to prevent most license violations, and still not overly draconian. I don't know of any business which has gone under due to an error around the GPL. That's as it should be. If the GPL were business-toxic, it wouldn't set up a successful ecosystem.

Think of it: If Nevada gave the death penalty for littering, would you liter less? Or simply never, ever, ever travel to Nevada?

In this case, I don't know of a reasonable remedy. I don't want to shut down copilot, but I do feel bad about having my code stolen from me. Perpetual license for everyone whose code was used to develop co-pilot? A nominal stock grant in Open AI? I dunno. When I've seen class action lawsuits, those are the sorts of places things usually land. Indeed, it's usually just short of being fair.