[go: up one dir, main page]

|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Software Freedom Conservancy: Give Up GitHub: The Time Has Come!

Software Freedom Conservancy: Give Up GitHub: The Time Has Come!

Posted Jul 4, 2022 12:56 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
In reply to: Software Freedom Conservancy: Give Up GitHub: The Time Has Come! by nye
Parent article: Software Freedom Conservancy: Give Up GitHub: The Time Has Come!

> All of the talk about verbatim outputs seems like a largely pointless distraction from the important part: the infinite set of outputs which are *not* a verbatim copy of a substantial piece of code, and which the copyright maximalists argue must be considered a derivative of all of its training inputs.

Not just the maximalists. Taking the word "derivative" at face value, all the output is derivative of the training data.

The question isn't whether it's derivative, the question is whether it's sufficiently *trivial* not to be copyright, or sufficiently complex and derived from just one or two training items to be a blatant copyright violation. And that will probably have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

tldr; don't assume because it comes from Copilot that it's copyright-free... (don't assume that it isn't, either).

Cheers,
Wol


to post comments

Software Freedom Conservancy: Give Up GitHub: The Time Has Come!

Posted Jul 4, 2022 13:42 UTC (Mon) by nye (subscriber, #51576) [Link] (1 responses)

> Not just the maximalists. Taking the word "derivative" at face value, all the output is derivative of the training data.

That is the maximal possible interpretation, so yes, just the maximalists, by definition. You haven't even added so much as any vague handwaving about transformative use!

Software Freedom Conservancy: Give Up GitHub: The Time Has Come!

Posted Jul 4, 2022 14:19 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> just the maximalists, by definition

Except the quote I was replying to said COPYRIGHT maximalists.

And I certainly didn't claim that the output was - or even should be - copyright. I just said that it was - BY DEFINITION OF THE WORD - derivative.

If I openly said that *some* output is too trivial to copyright, how does that make me a copyright maximalist? And again, isn't "transformative use" - by definition - derivative? FFS, it's a *transformation* - it's the same thing but altered ...

Cheers,
Wol


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds