"GitHub Copilot can allow or block suggestions matching public code. See GitHub Copilot FAQ to learn more."
The FAQ appears to be missing.
1. How do you know Co-pilot violated OSS licenses?
> The aforementioned PII and secrets emitted. And IIRC a support personnel said they even copied GPL licensed code. So there is nothing stopping them from copying MIT licensed ones. Which is still a violation without attribution. So no reason for the benefit of the doubt.
2. Humans copy code all the time. So why can't an AI? Or something along the lines of it...
The answer is 2 parted.
1. A human can only copy so much. Most of them are not in bad faith. And those who are in bad faith are not a humongous portion. An AI just scrapes the code in mass scale which is impossible for a human even with automation. It's also easier for it to learn from this training data compared to someone scrapping the data and maintaining a DB. This is such a common sense thing. None of the laws, policies or systems are made for AI in mind. So it is just a careless thing to say.
2. If are not adhering to OSS licenses then YOU ARE in violation. So if you are not called out or punished, DOESN'T MEAN you are right. Just means you are getting away with it.
This is just a PR exercise for MS. They already have the data and the product. A nobody has the balls to question them. The normalization of these bad behaviors with their good PR being "the guardians of the OSS" is literally taunting the entire OSS community.
This is where I hoped FSF, EFF, SFConservancy or any other group would step up. Nothing so far. Just yelling into the void hoping MS will suddenly do the right thing.
Might also include source-available code like Unreal Engine, etc.
Training CoPilot on code doesn’t violate any software licenses.
Even if it regurgitates large unchanged passages of code, with the advertised selling point of using anything it produces in an unrestricted fashion?
It seems to be kind of a fine point, otherwise you could implement a license laundering AI by training it on a single codebase and asking it questions about it. If you end up with a byte by byte replica sans a LICENSE file presumably you wouldn’t get away with actually _using_ the model to clone licensed software even if training it was technically ok.
CoPilot would definitely fail the clean room test, though
Anyone developing and trying to sell ML models will try hard to act like this is a settled question. This is obviously a huge uncertainty factor for using various commercial ML models.
The model is 100% compliant with open source licenses.
If co-pilot suggests anything under copyright and you publish it you get sued.
The argument GitHub advanced for this was absolutely ridiculous: that code stops being code when CoPilot analyzes it, qualifies only as text while CoPilot analyzes or suggests it, but magically turns back into code if/when the user incorporates the suggested text into their code base.
The real argument GitHub made was much more credible: the CEO came on here and said something like "the legality of code reuse is an interesting new area of law and we welcome the debate," which in lawyer terms means "we have smart, well-informed lawyers, and we can easily get these cases in front of dipshit judges who don't understand technology."
It's an interesting product, and I hear good things about its utility in practice. But the legal argument is utter nonsense. CoPilot definitely violates many software licenses, and knowingly so.
if it increases developer productivity by 10-20%, its a huge net win for global prosperity.
Not to mention anyone that believes in respecting other people’s licensing terms when they’ve provided their code to the world for free.
> The aforementioned PII and secrets emitted
It's not trained on private GitHub repos. Any secrets it generated would have been already public and compromised.
> Which suggests that they snooped through OSS code and violated any licenses
That it was trained on FOSS code is already known. Whether doing so violates the licenses is probably up for courts to decide.
> An AI just scrapes the code in mass scale which is impossible for a human even with automation
Human programmers can do this with search engines.
Two things..
1. This is not some vigilante hacking groups you are talking about. This is MS - a humongous corp. They know doing this is wrong. So it shouldn't matter. It is still illegal and making a proprietary software product is exactly the reason why these things exist. Don't you think?
2. Already public unintentionally. AFAIK, any code that I produce is automatically copyrighted to me. This means if I write something in public and not provide a license, IT IS LEGALLY under the copyright protection provided to me by my country. At least that is the case in US and India which are home to a huge portion of OSS. Do correct me if I am wrong. Putting it like that in public would be just plain stupid for sure. But legally it is still mine. Reproducing it and remixing my work would be illegal. It is just my PITA now to prove that in court is all.
> Whether doing so violates the licenses is probably up for courts to decide.
I am yet to see any attribution to ANY OSS code that it is trained on. The PII and secrets is enough to find out the license of a repo which would make it easier to prove whether they violated it or not. Don't tell me all OSS that copilot has trained on is only public domain stuff. Even ISC license needs attribution.
> Human programmers can do this with search engines.
OK. CAN. And that is wrong too. So when they do, we should incriminate them as well if evidence is out there or if a matter such as this comes to light. How does that change anything I mentioned? Very curious.
It definitely does matter that any secrets generated were already public:
* Emitting secrets from private repos would be a huge confidentiality issue (though really you shouldn't commit code secrets to git at all), as it'd be taking something that's private + exploitable and making it public
* Emitting secrets that are already public doesn't cause the confidentiality issue. Once a secret is out, it's out, and should be changed immediately. By the time it's in Copilot's training set, it'll have already been on search engines/archive sites/black-hat forums/etc.
Tangentially, GitHub do also do some scanning to alert of accidentally committed secrets in repos: https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/secret-scanning/abo...
> 2. Already public unintentionally.
Right, but therefore already compromised and no longer confidential. Copilot isn't leaking any secrets, someone else did by making them public.
> AFAIK, any code that I produce is automatically copyrighted to me. This means if I write something in public and not provide a license, IT IS LEGALLY under the copyright protection provided to me by my country. At least that is the case in US and India which are home to a huge portion of OSS.
Essentially correct, to my understanding. If you're making it public, you'll generally also give some hosting/publishing/distribution rights to the services involved - as specified by their T&C.
> Reproducing it and remixing my work would be illegal
The US has the concept of fair use which provides exceptions for "transformative” purposes. For example: copying and downscaling your image to use as a thumbnail, caching the webpage your work is on, or creating a parody of your work.
Consider Google Books for example, where Google scanned millions of copyrighted books and made them searchable (showing snippets). This was ruled fair use due to being transformative.
Question would be whether code generated by Copilot that falls under this. Ultimately it's up to the courts to decide, but I'd lean in favor of "yes".
> The PII and secrets is enough to find out the license of a repo which would make it easier to prove whether they violated it or not. Don't tell me all OSS that copilot has trained on is only public domain stuff. Even ISC license needs attribution.
Fair use is about unlicensed usage, so if it's fair use then it doesn't need to abide by the terms of the licenses. Even if it's ruled not to be fair use, I think they could still train it on GitHub-hosted code due to the mentioned rights you give them by agreeing to GitHub's T&C.
> How does that change anything I mentioned? Very curious.
Changes your claim of impossibility, so now it's just about whether there's a violation.
However, if the model is simply compressing code it sees into the model weights, just memorizing snippets, then outputting those snippets, that’s much more likely to violate licenses. Like when people copy+paste from some licensed code without attribution (even if realistically nothing is enforced most of the time).
The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. Lets say 20% of code is stored directly in the weights but the rest is synthesized. That’s a problem for the whole product.
We already know models do a little bit of both depending on the data coverage. Common structures like if/then, loops, etc. are probably “understood” because the model saw them in lots of contexts. However, specific functions, especially those that are seen only a few times in much the same contexts are more likely to be copied. There’s a spectrum here from shortcut learning to understanding.
OSS doesn’t really have the access or resources to evaluate this. Github isn’t really incentivized to share any analysis they’ve done here.
What’s interesting to me is that their solution to this problem is to put the issue on their users/customers. By default, crawl everything public, ignorant of licenses, and if the customer has license concerns its on them to disable public code matching.
In an actual codebase the frequency you are getting 'snippets' is less than 1%, not 20%.
This was discussed in the FAQ for the beta.
The straw man around this topic is wild.
Anyone who has actually used it should know that in an existing project, it very heavily matches the output flavoring to the existing codebase. When there isn't anything to match, it only has the training data to pull from.
Demoing the edge case where it is set up to fail and then pointing and saying "look at how it failed" is a bit silly. And continuing to harp on it in the comments on a piece about how now there's literally a setting to prevent even those edge cases is perhaps even moreso.
https://github.com/features/copilot/
"What can I do to reduce GitHub Copilot's suggestion of code that matches public code?
"We built a filter to help detect and suppress the rare instances where a GitHub Copilot suggestion contains code that matches public code on GitHub. You have the choice to turn that filter on or off during setup. With the filter on, GitHub Copilot checks code suggestions with its surrounding code for matches or near matches (ignoring whitespace) against public code on GitHub of about 150 characters. If there is a match, the suggestion will not be shown to you. We plan on continuing to evolve this approach and welcome feedback and comment."
If somebody left a code with some license 10 years ago, then that's how he published it and it should be respected. If there are some additional files, changes or checkboxes required on the author side (who may be dead btw), then it is a theater not a solution.
I could totally go with let's abandon licenses (but would prefer starting with patents), what's online is ours. But if we want to keep them then the license itself is enough of a statement. It's not like we have a hard time writing software which interprets them... it's more like "but we would have to do a big refactoring".
I'm a bit confused how this will work in practice, because I don't see how they can retrain their entire model every time someone toggles that setting.
We might really need a new clause in the license.
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice > shall be included in all copies or substantial portions > of the Software.
If you are using Copilot and it produces a MIT-licensed snippet of code, you are in plain violation of the license. It is wilful copyright violation.
Yes and like standard your cite says none of the interpretations would cover a snippet.
>the commonly accepted 'safe bet' is any single line of the software.
Github/MS aren't going for the 'safe bet'. They're going for the maximum that they can get away with.
Those same people put their code in public repos on GitHub, with permissive license(s), and don't opt-out of Github's use of their code for things like copilot.
Those same people are now mad at Microsoft because of copilot, and not mad at Amazon for their competing service which does the same things.
How does one opt-out, aside from not making the source available at all?
I'm also late to this article, so maybe this was a bug that was fixed.
so many developers here believe [...] their code is extremely valuable, and should never be found in the hands of another person
Usually they are fine with other people reading or using the code, so long as proper attribution is given or derivative works have similar terms. Which is not happening in this case.
The Amazon solution is newer and less widely used or advertised. Presumably all of the arguments about Copilot refer to the Amazon version.
I am absolutely fine with other people using my code.
I am not fine with my code being used by AIs whose only ultimate goal is to make me unemployable while simultaneously generate a bunch of money for some corporations and introduce a bunch of labor and inequality issues in an already shit society.
Now, as we found, telling the bot to solve for `Q_rsqrt` is something of a creative dead-end: the AI has only come across that a few times, and most likely they were implemented the same. So, with all that being said, I think this is a fine solution to the problem (as long as it works well).
Nobody has challenged this in court yet to my knowledge.
Not a lawyer though.
So I think there needs to be some way of determining it. If they think it's fair use that also means they wouldn't think it was wrong to train it on public repos in gitlab, etc. Do they already train on repos outside Github?
That being said, by using only github-hosted code, they sidestepped the question of whether this is actually fair use, because it's part of there ToS. And there is no way to opt out someone's ToS either, unless you delete your account altogether.
"'There's no such thing as intellectual property' ... except mine. Don't you dare touch my IP. I"ll sue!"
"'Downloading a copy doesn't deprive the copyright owner of anything' ... hey, stop stealing my code. Thief! Pirate!"
The irony of the anti-IP and pro-FOSS crowd failing to live up to their own professed philosophy is profound.
(As long as the copyright notice is retained of course, which in this case isn’t.)
I’ve begun leaning heavily toward GPL for this reason.
But just because you slap a license on something does mean you actually can enforce it.
> if you don't make the source public
I'm not sure what you mean by that, the GPL only has constraints for redistribution. If you don't distribute anything (publicly or not), there is no way to break the GPL.