Automatically licensing Copilot-developed code under the GPL (the author being the general public) would solve the problem.
The GPL is a copyright license, and the general public cannot hold a copyright. So it doesn't work for the general public to license a work under the GPL, either.
Parading “free as in freedom” for licensing that doesn’t offer complete freedom… bugs me.
There is no way to offer complete freedom to everyone. If it's public domain, you cannot preserve users' freedoms to derivatives. If it's copyleft, you take away others' freedom to make it closed source. People like the Free Software Foundation feel that preserving peoples' freedom to take away others' freedoms (e.g. public domain) isn't enhancing freedom overall but detrimental to it. And that position makes sense to me.
The issue here is Copilot occasionally spitting out copylefted code. If a court were to decide that that code should be public domain because it is the output of an AI, then that copyleft license would be nullified.
I don't think that's how it works. The court would not say "that code, everywhere and produced by any person or entity, is now public domain." It would say "you are not allowed to claim copyright on this work, because it was not produced by a human." That's it. Neither the developer nor the AI gets a copyright on it, but the original code's copyright and license is intact. If someone else were to see the code, believe it is public domain, and use it, that person would be in violation of the free software license. That's not a good situation, but it's a lot better than granting copyright to AI in my opinion.
Only the courts can give the final answer, but I find it hard to imagine that judges would understand the importance of copyleft in keeping software free for anyone to modify and share in a way that the public domain can't.
But all that matters is whether the work is eligible for copyright, and that determination doesn't require any understanding of free software principles. If it is, you can put whatever license you want on it, including copyleft.
if Copilot were to produce verbatim a substantial chunk of GPL'ed code then the person using Copilot wouldn't know that 1. the code is actually copied from somewhere and 2. the license of the code is a copyleft license.
That would seem to be an entirely unrelated concern, no? Whether copyright is granted on Copilot developed code or not, if it reproduces copyleft licensed code without notifying the user, that's a problem.
"If code is released public domain without restriction, then it will be quickly taken and locked up by proprietary corporate giants who have no incentive to collaborate or give back to the project."
This doesn't affect the original source, but combine that with my description of the mission of (some) open source projects, and you see the issue, yes?
I never quite grasped the idea that open office would be hurt if Neo or Star didn’t release the source of their changes.
I don't think it's that they would be hurt, it's that their goal of keeping the software that they've produced (and its derivatives) open would be foiled. They contribute software to the world not so that some company can take it, make it closed source, and make money from selling it, but so that it can be distributed, used, and improved freely. Allowing it to be closed source would be counter to the mission.
How is public domain going to hurt software by locking it up when it’s literally not happened with other offerings?
Are you referring to this?
"I'm worried about the potentially devastating harm that the relationship between AI and copyright will have on copyleft free culture licenses. "
That's not a concern about public domain software being locked up, it's a concern about a desire to apply copyright and an open source license to some software, and whether that will be possible if the software is partially written by AI.
Because, I suspect, that you don't understand the problem.
This is very much in keeping with the conservative thought pattern. Either something is black, or it is white. Either it is free, or it is not free. Public domain is free, so it's difficult for someone who thinks that way to understand that something not public domain could also be free in a different way.
And lest anyone think I'm just demonizing conservatives because I'm not one:
Did Copilot write the code, or did a human write the code with the assistance of Copilot? If the former I see no reason why it should be eligible for copyright protection. If the latter, why do you believe the copyright is in jeopardy? Has such a copyright been challenged or voided?
If code is generated by AI, it should be public domain, and should not be eligible for a copyleft license. If there was human input into the code, I would think there would be no problem copyrighting it.
Looks like a variation of the Streisand Effect to me.
He was famous and influential enough to get a $100 million dollar podcast deal. Just because you hadn't heard of him doesn't mean he wasn't already well known.
Had a vaccine not been available, there's no doubt that the figures would be much higher than they are now, especially when the new variants started to appear (which mainly affected those who were unvaccinated).
Yes, I recall predictions of 2 million or more deaths (not necessarily on this page), which seem completely plausible had there not been any vaccines to this point.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be public
The GPL is a copyright license, and the general public cannot hold a copyright. So it doesn't work for the general public to license a work under the GPL, either.
https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some
There is no way to offer complete freedom to everyone. If it's public domain, you cannot preserve users' freedoms to derivatives. If it's copyleft, you take away others' freedom to make it closed source. People like the Free Software Foundation feel that preserving peoples' freedom to take away others' freedoms (e.g. public domain) isn't enhancing freedom overall but detrimental to it. And that position makes sense to me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be pub
I don't think that's how it works. The court would not say "that code, everywhere and produced by any person or entity, is now public domain." It would say "you are not allowed to claim copyright on this work, because it was not produced by a human." That's it. Neither the developer nor the AI gets a copyright on it, but the original code's copyright and license is intact. If someone else were to see the code, believe it is public domain, and use it, that person would be in violation of the free software license. That's not a good situation, but it's a lot better than granting copyright to AI in my opinion.
Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be public domain.
Making sure Copilot-developed code isn't public domain doesn't solve that problem.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be pub
But all that matters is whether the work is eligible for copyright, and that determination doesn't require any understanding of free software principles. If it is, you can put whatever license you want on it, including copyleft.
That would seem to be an entirely unrelated concern, no? Whether copyright is granted on Copilot developed code or not, if it reproduces copyleft licensed code without notifying the user, that's a problem.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI gene
Perhaps this will help clarify:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated wo
OK, so what part of this is not clear?
"If code is released public domain without restriction, then it will be quickly taken and locked up by proprietary corporate giants who have no incentive to collaborate or give back to the project."
This doesn't affect the original source, but combine that with my description of the mission of (some) open source projects, and you see the issue, yes?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shou
Who is claiming that?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be
I don't think it's that they would be hurt, it's that their goal of keeping the software that they've produced (and its derivatives) open would be foiled. They contribute software to the world not so that some company can take it, make it closed source, and make money from selling it, but so that it can be distributed, used, and improved freely. Allowing it to be closed source would be counter to the mission.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't remember, is that your position on social media moderation as well?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be public
Are you referring to this?
"I'm worried about the potentially devastating harm that the relationship between AI and copyright will have on copyleft free culture licenses. "
That's not a concern about public domain software being locked up, it's a concern about a desire to apply copyright and an open source license to some software, and whether that will be possible if the software is partially written by AI.
Publicity
Anyone still want to claim there's no such thing as bad publicity?
Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be public domain.
This is very much in keeping with the conservative thought pattern. Either something is black, or it is white. Either it is free, or it is not free. Public domain is free, so it's difficult for someone who thinks that way to understand that something not public domain could also be free in a different way.
And lest anyone think I'm just demonizing conservatives because I'm not one:
https://archives.northwestu.edu/handle/nu/57386
Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be public doma
Did Copilot write the code, or did a human write the code with the assistance of Copilot? If the former I see no reason why it should be eligible for copyright protection. If the latter, why do you believe the copyright is in jeopardy? Has such a copyright been challenged or voided?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Philosophical question
Well, even if we live together in peace, copyright will be less important than a whole lot of other issues.
Re: Re: Re: Philosophical question
Did I miss a joke that I made?
Re: Philosophical question
I would say copyright is pretty far down the list of concerns when that becomes a real question. But yes, that is something we're not ready for.
Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be public domain.
If code is generated by AI, it should be public domain, and should not be eligible for a copyleft license. If there was human input into the code, I would think there would be no problem copyrighting it.
Re: Re: Re: A legal decision
He was famous and influential enough to get a $100 million dollar podcast deal. Just because you hadn't heard of him doesn't mean he wasn't already well known.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Future
Yes, I recall predictions of 2 million or more deaths (not necessarily on this page), which seem completely plausible had there not been any vaccines to this point.
More comments from nasch >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by nasch.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt