[spupe]

> All SO questions, answers and comments are CC BY-SA. The terms of the site say that anyone submitting this content agrees that it's licensed that way, and when you visit the site you agree that you are provided with the content under that license.

Have you ever read GitHub's conditions to know whether they also have the right to use your code that way, no matter how you decide to license it? I feel that you are overly focused on the legal part here, which I'm sure was handled by Microsoft's lawyers. I'm more interested in the question of principle.

No matter what the terms of use at SO say, anyone can give you an answer that is a copy of some code they don't own. You may consider that immoral, but I don't, not at the scope SO is used for. In addition, the vast majority of cases at SO and Copilot are not about complex functions being stolen, it's about some dumb code you would have found in 2 minutes of googling. What I'm trying to argue here is that if we are all cool with SO and think it's useful, there is no fundamental difference here. We never cared too much about licenses for boilerplate code, and I think we shouldn't start now.

[jhugo]

> Have you ever read GitHub's conditions to know whether they also have the right to use your code that way, no matter how you decide to license it? I feel that you are overly focused on the legal part here, which I'm sure was handled by Microsoft's lawyers. I'm more interested in the question of principle.

I have, and there is not. Neither could there be — in many cases the person uploading code to GitHub is not the copyright holder — they are just doing something permitted under the license — and for a large open source project there could be thousands of copyright holders. A random person mirroring some source code to GitHub is in no position to negotiate different license terms on behalf of the copyright holder(s).

> No matter what the terms of use at SO say, anyone can give you an answer that is a copy of some code they don't own. You may consider that immoral, but I don't, not at the scope SO is used for. In addition, the vast majority of cases at SO and Copilot are not about complex functions being stolen, it's about some dumb code you would have found in 2 minutes of googling. What I'm trying to argue here is that if we are all cool with SO and think it's useful, there is no fundamental difference here. We never cared too much about licenses for boilerplate code, and I think we shouldn't start now.

I don't understand why you think a person writing an answer on SO and a computer program outputting some permutation of its inputs into your editor are the same thing. The person writing an SO answer is intelligent and capable of conceptual understanding, the computer regurgitating code without regard to its license is not.

[spupe]

>> Have you ever read GitHub's conditions to know whether they also have the right to use your code that way, no matter how you decide to license it? > I have, and there is not.

At least one IP lawyer strongly disagrees, suggesting anything you host on GitHub is fair game [1].

[1] https://fossa.com/blog/analyzing-legal-implications-github-c...

> The person writing an SO answer is intelligent and capable of conceptual understanding, the computer regurgitating code without regard to its license is not.

From a copyright perspective, that is irrelevant. In fact I would think Copilot has more incentives to not infringe than a random SO user, who is very unlikely to be sued. I already argued in another post that in my view, from any perspective, it is also irrelevant whether it's a person or AI doing the same work Copilot does.

[jhugo]

> At least one IP lawyer strongly disagrees, suggesting anything you host on GitHub is fair game [1].

The question is whether Copilot's users can use the regurgitated code without following the license terms, not whether Copilot was allowed to train their model on it. I agree it's likely fine for them to train the model, but the use of Copilot would seem to be a legal minefield.

A little thought makes it clear that an affirmative answer would be absurd. This would mean that using a simple tool (let's say `cat`) to make a copy of some code and subsequently ignoring its license terms is infringement, but if the software used to make the copy is more complex (or perhaps if it has the "AI" label stuck to it!) the same actions are not infringement.