Hacker News Reader

If github or google indexes source code using a neural net to help you find it, given a query, is that also illegal? If you think of copilot as something that helps you find code you’re looking for, is it all that different, and if so, why?

In this case, wouldn’t the users of copilot be the ones responsible for any copyrighted code they may have accessed using copilot?

View on HN

The crux of the issue: Is the code that is being generated being used in a way that it's license allows? That's it. I'm confident that this problem would go away if copilot said:

//below output code is MIT licensed (source: github/repo/blah)

And yes, the "users" are responsible, but it's possible that copilot could be implicated in a case depending on how it's access is licensed.

Stable diffusion has this same problem btw, but in visual arts "fair use" is even murkier.

For code, if you could use the code and respect the license, why wouldn't you? Copilot takes away that opportunity and replaces it with "trust us".

This makes sense, it produces chunks not the whole source where a search engine would also give you the license.

Both services already accept DMCA notices to take content down.

True, that’s another good point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com