If they didn't, GitHub itself would be violating copyright every time someone browsed the repo.
And copilot appears to be a part of GitHub.
So why wouldn't copilot itself be covered by that license?
(Certainly people using copilot would not. Let the user beware.)
Edit: downvoted to death but the top reply shows that it's true. An inconvenient truth, I suppose.
> 4. License Grant to Us
> This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service
https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o...
.
> If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking).
> You may grant further rights if you adopt a license.
https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o...
.
.
> A. Definitions
> The “Service” refers to the applications, software, products, and services provided by GitHub, including any Beta Previews.
https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o...
Sneaky bastards.
.
I guest next step github would require cell phone to sign up to make sure who you are and get the rights to profit.
Couple that with the fact, that presumably at some point in the future, Co-pilot will come attached with a subscription model (otherwise why do it in the first place?), and we have the makings of a product that is commercially infringing on copyright left, right and center.
Edit: Sorry downvoters, whether you like it or not, you don't understand the terminology. You're confusing reproduction with redistribution.
Using the terms as you explained them below, I meant that Microsoft/GitHub has permission to reproduce the code so why wouldn't that extend to copilot?
For the latter you would need redistribution as it is going into a different product, for which you claim ownership, and with possible modifications/adaptations (this would depend on the rights granted by the license). Nowhere on Github's TOS is the word or concept of redistribution referenced.
So, the answer to your original question is "no".
Edit: leereeves modified its comment after I wrote this, so it may not make much sense but you can figure out the point. Best!
(Edit and BTW GH calls out their ‘distribution’ in section D.4 of their TOS explicitly, but without using the word “distribute”. They say you grant them the right to “publish” and “share” code you upload, which means “distribute” under copyright law. They also imply that by spelling out the terms under which they do not “distribute”, which is anytime the content is used outside of GitHub’s services.)
I don’t think you’re correct that the term “redistribution” means either going into another product, nor that it implies a claim of ownership. Putting works into another product is sometimes known as making a derivative work, while “redistributing” is quite commonly used to mean copy-and-distribute as-is. Redistribution can happen via license as well, it requires permission by the copyright owner, but does not imply the redistributor is (or is claiming to be) the copyright owner.
You didn't see the original question, it was edited, so we cannot discuss that further.
"[...] which means “distribute” under copyright law" <-- Citation needed please, because I don't think that's correct.
From the site you linked:
"Distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending."
What I seem to grasp about the difference between reproducing and redistributing is that it has to do with the concept of "transfer of ownership". Also derivate work and redistribution are not mutually exclusive.
The moment you create a new thing and start distributing it (even if you do not modify it), you become the de facto owner of that new product, and copyright law is trying to limit the extent of the rights that apply there. So, in the case of music, it's different thing to play (reproduce) a song than to create a new album with your favorite artists that happens to include that particular song (redistribution).
> What I seem to grasp about the difference between reproducing and redistributing is that it has to do with the concept of "transfer of ownership". Also derivate work and redistribution are not mutually exclusive.
What you've misunderstood is it is the copies that are sold, not the copyrights.
* edit
> create a new album with your favorite artists that happens to include that particular song (redistribution).
This is not what redistribution means. You seem confused about this word.
Sorry, I'm not following you anymore. I don't even know what you mean by that sentence.
Edit:
>This is not what redistribution means. You seem confused about this word.
But, that's exactly what redistribution entails ...
The transfer of ownership you referred to is a transfer of ownership of a copy, it is not a transfer of ownership of the original work itself. You misunderstood the passage you quoted to mean that redistribution is transferring ownership of the work itself, as in copyright ownership of the work. But the text you quoted is only talking about transferring ownership of the copies. The text you chose makes more sense in the context of physical copies of books or "phonorecords".
Copyright is meant to protect original/authentic/unprecedented expressions, disregarding the medium where they may exist. So I don't really get your point in trying to make distinction between a copy or a "master"(?) or whatever.
What's at stake is the originality of the expression and what kind of rights does somebody else (i.e. everyone but the creator) have (or not!) over it.
Can I make copies of this original expression? (y/n)
Can I use this into a new product of my own? (y/n)
Whether something is already a copy or not does not really change the extent of the rights that you have (unless it's explicitly stated in the license, of course).
I can see that, and I mean no disrespect, but you shouldn’t have attempted to comment on this topic authoritatively and police what others say without understanding it.
> I don’t really get your point in trying to make distinction between a copy or a “master”(?) or whatever.
You have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that you don’t understand what “distribute” and “redistribution” means to copyright law. You claimed others were confused about it and that using the word “redistribute” was incorrect, when in fact it was fine and correct.
I’m trying to help you understand that redistribution is a term that is talking about what happens to copies of a work. The sentence you quoted, and the “transfer of ownership” that you said you grasp only have to do with transferring copies, and nothing else.
The main point here is that when GitHub shows you code, it is transferring a copy to you. That is what GitHub calls “publish” and what copyright law calls “publication”, and by publishing they mean redistribution (because the copyright legal code says so).
No, it isn't. You're wrong. Redistribution, or just distribution, in copyright law is plainly and simply making copies of a work available to other people. It does not mean anything more than that, and it does not transfer ownership of anything other than the copy you distribute.
The use of licensed code in other projects must be done under the terms of that license or you aren't legally (under copyright law) allowed to use the code.
The GitHub TOS is a license that is separate from the license in the code. It is legal and common for an author to license the same code multiple ways (and the licenses do not have to agree with each other). By agreeing to GitHub’s TOS and uploading code to GH servers, people are licensing GH to display the code, because the license agreement says so explicitly. This could be problematic if someone uploads code they don’t have the rights to upload, but then the violation is the uploader’s, and not GitHub’s.
Additionally, GH has a provision for already licensed code in section D.6:
“6. Contributions Under Repository License
“Whenever you add Content to a repository containing notice of a license, you license that Content under the same terms, and you agree that you have the right to license that Content under those terms. If you have a separate agreement to license that Content under different terms, such as a contributor license agreement, that agreement will supersede.
“Isn't this just how it works already? Yep. This is widely accepted as the norm in the open-source community; it's commonly referred to by the shorthand "inbound=outbound". We're just making it explicit.”
https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o...
It seems like you're confused; GitHub's terms require users to grant both of those. Copyright law also covers both.
Last time I checked (about an hour ago), that wasn't true. Feel free to provide evidence to support your argument.
https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o...
"publish" and "share" mean redistribution. "Store" and "copy" mean reproduce.
No. That's something you believe, but it's not necessarily true.
Check here, https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-rights-copyright-own...
Again, distribution has to do with a transfer of ownership. In layman terms, Github can show your code to others but it cannot give (as in ownership) your code to them. It's a bit tricky here since on the web showing something literally means making a copy at some point, but try to view things under the light of "who owns what" and it's a bit easier to grasp.
If you browse through someone's repository, it's pretty clear who the owner of that code is, if a program gives you a chunk of code that it "got from somewhere" there's definitely some sort of change of ownership operation going on; which in this case is interesting, as it went from attributed to someone to missing/unknown.
You're mixing sub-threads here, but you're still confused. Distribution is a transfer of ownership of a copy, it does not grant copyrights or ownership of the work. You can buy a book that was distributed, and that does not give you the right to make copies of the book.
> Github can show your code to others but it cannot give (as in ownership) your code to them.
In the digital world, showing is "distributing", and copyright law is clear about this.
You should perhaps read the definitions that are in the copyright law itself, and try to understand them:
"“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.
>In the digital world, showing is "distributing" [...]
I guess it has to do with how copyright law adapts to the specific circumstances of this particular case. I guess we won't get an answer until a judge justifies some sort of resolution on either side.
My take is that:
* GH showing you some source code on their website is akin to reproduction; even though, of course, a binary copy of the code was made and was transmitted to your local browser in order to be displayed.
while
* GH taking chunks of code from here and there, and making them available into a new product from which they claim ownership (or the final user, or whatever) is more akin to the physical concept of redistribution.
But we'll have to wait and see.
This is clearly and unambiguously defined as “publication” in the copyright law, where “publication” is defined as distributing copies. (And GitHub’s TOS also calls showing you code “publish”).
There is nothing to wait for, and the law and many court cases have already established clear definitions and precedent on these terms. You just got stuck on the wrong idea, it happens, it’s okay, but if you are curious about copyright and interested in discussing it here, it will certainly help to improve your understanding of the terminology.
> GH taking chunks of code from here and there […] is more akin to the physical concept of redistribution
No, this is still just wrong. You’re talking about derivative works, which is also defined in the copyright legal code. There is no such physical concept of mixing and matching that is called “redistribution” in legal terms. I’m not sure where that idea came from, it might make sense to you or in some narrow contexts, but generally speaking and specifically wrt copyright law, distribution has nothing to do with whether you sample a work nor whether you make a new work out of old works.
The “Terms” link on the copilot page goes directly to GitHub’s TOS, so yes the terms are one and the same.
This question is interesting and I’ll try to help turn the downvotes around, but it might be too late. Anyway, when users agree to allow their code to be “published” by GitHub, they are allowing it to be both copied and distributed. The TOS also says (note the indexing/analysis comment) “This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.”
The part where GitHub might have trouble (I speculate) is that their TOS doesn’t discuss derivative works, and the input code to copilot could have licensing terms on derivative works that get scrubbed out by copilot. OTOH, if copilot were to guarantee that a chunk of code never resembled one of the original inputs it may be legal to create derivative works from samples under fair use.