Did it "write it for you"? Or did it "illegally copy it for you"? That's a very big difference.
I'm not claiming that you can't get big productivity boosts by ripping off code like a crazy person. I bet you can! But should you?
I'm not claiming that you can't get big productivity boosts by ripping off code like a crazy person. I bet you can! But should you?
Even if it's remarkably similar to another function from a completely different code base but some of the symbols or variable names or function name has been changed, I would argue that it still falls under fair use, and is sufficiently transformative.
There are plenty of examples by now of big chunks of code lifted verbatim but without attribution. Pretty clear cut stuff.
> Even if it's remarkably similar to another function from a completely different code base but some of the symbols or variable names or function name has been changed, I would argue that it still falls under fair use, and is sufficiently transformative.
That's BS on many levels. Changing variable names doesn't make copyright go away. It's just trying to hide your violation of it.
I am pretty vocally against copyright, but let's not kid ourselves about the morality of this. No attribution is immoral.
Richard Stallman would agree, but there are many of us who make a living writing software.
Is software valuable enough that people will pay money for it?
If you write original software that solves a problem, shouldn't you be able to license it how you want and profit from it?
You are welcome to license the software you create how you want. Let me license the software I create how I want.
If I dual license my software as GPL and commercial and GitHub Copilot reproduces my GPLed code without attribution and without the license, how it that not copyright violation?
If GitHub Copilot was only "copying patterns" then it would be a lot harder to call it copyright violation and misappropriation of existing code.
And yet that is exactly what GitHub Copilot has been accused of doing: recreating copyrighted works without attribution and in violation of the licenses that the code was released under:
https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/pdf/1-0-github_complaint...
https://twitter.com/DocSparse/status/1581461734665367554
>> That's a hilarious expectation.
Only if you think lawsuits are funny. Cease and desist orders and damages show that they are no laughing matter.
My favorite part:
>Copyright Now
>Now with digital data and computer networks, it much easier for us to copy and manipulate information
> Digital technology has changed the effect of copyright law
> Copyright used to be a power that was:
> wielded by authors
> over publishers
> to yield benefits to the public
> Now it’s a power that is:
> wielded by publishers
> to punish the public
> in the name of the authors
> Now the public wants to copy and share — what would a democratic government do?