From: Sativa@gnutella.com   
      
   Microsoft already bought GitHub and sells open source code for   
   around $10 a month to automatically complete programmers   
   code.   
      
   Richard Stallman already worries how Microsoft earns money by   
   selling open source code.   
      
   Microsoft uses artificial intelligence to obfuscate the open   
   source code to get to the money.   
      
   It's legal since artificial intelligence is the liason.   
      
   Stallman's response?   
      
   There are many legal questions about Copilot whose answers I don't   
    know, and maybe nobody knows. And it's likely some of theo depend   
    on the country you're in [because of the copyright laws in those   
    countries.] In the U.S. we won't be able to have reliable answers   
    until there are court cases about it, and who knows how many   
    years it'll take for those court cases to arise and be finally   
    decided. So basically what we have is a gigantic amount of   
    uncertainty.   
      
   Now the next thing is, what about morally? What can I say morally   
    about Copilot? Well the basic idea seems okay. Why shouldn't a   
    program be able to give you hints like that?   
      
   But there is one pitfall, which is that if you follow those hints,   
    you might end up putting a substantial block of code copied from   
    a GPL-covered program, written by someone else, or one hint after   
    another after another after another ? it adds up to a substantial   
    amount of code, perhaps, with very little change, perhaps. And   
    then you've infringed the GPL by releasing that code, unless your   
    program is covered by the same versions ? plural ? of the GPL, in   
    which case it would be permitted. But you might not even know   
    that. Copilot might not tell you ? it doesn't endeavor to inform   
    you. So you're likely not to know. Which means Copilot is leading   
    users ? some of its users ? into a pitfall. Well, they should fix   
    it so it doesn't do that.   
      
   But basically, what can you expect from GitHub? GitHub gives   
    people inadequate advice about what it means to choose a license.   
    They tell you you can choose GPL version 2 or GPL version 3. I   
    think they don't tell you that really you could choose GPL   
    version 2 only, or GPL version 2 or later, or GPL version 3 only,   
    or GPL version 3 or later ? and those are four different choices.   
    They give users different permissions over the future. So it's   
    important to make each program say clearly which choice covers   
    it. And GitHub doesn't tell you how to do that.   
      
   It doesn't tell you that you need to do that. Because the way you   
    do that is with a licensed notice that is supposed to be in every   
    source file. It's unreliable to put just one statement in a free   
    program and say "This program is covered by such-and-such   
    license." What happens if somebody copies one of the files into   
    some other program which says it's covered by a different   
    license? Now that program has been inaccurately mis-licensed,   
    which is illegal and is going to mislead users. So any   
    self-respecting ? any repository that wants to be honest has to   
    explain these things, not just tell people to make the licensing   
    of each piece of code clear, but help users do so ? make it   
    easy.   
      
   So GitHub has had this enormous problem for all of its existence,   
    and Copilot has the similar ? a basically, vaguely similar sort   
    of problem, in the same area. It's not exactly the same problem.   
    I don't think that copying a snippet of a few lines of code   
    infringes any license. I think it's de minimus. But I'm not a   
    lawyer.   
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)