Verbatim isn't the problem / solution. If you take a GPL'ed library and rename all symbols and variables, the output is still a GPL'ed library.
Just seeing the output of GPL'ed code spitted by copilot and writing different code "inspired" by it can result in GPL'ed code. That's why "clean room"s exist.
Copilot is going to make for a very interesting to follow law case, because probably until somebody sues, and courts decide, nobody will have a definitive answer of whether it is safe to use or not.
Stack Overflow content is licensed under CC-BY-SA. Terms [1]:
* Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
* ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
In over a decade of software engineering, I've seen many reuses of Stack Overflow content, occasionally with links to underlying answers. All Stack Overflow content use I've seen would clearly fail the legal terms set out by the license.
I suspect Copilot usage will similarly fail a stringent interpretation of underlying licenses, and will similarly face essentially no enforcement.
volta83|4 years ago
Fixed that for you.
Verbatim isn't the problem / solution. If you take a GPL'ed library and rename all symbols and variables, the output is still a GPL'ed library.
Just seeing the output of GPL'ed code spitted by copilot and writing different code "inspired" by it can result in GPL'ed code. That's why "clean room"s exist.
Copilot is going to make for a very interesting to follow law case, because probably until somebody sues, and courts decide, nobody will have a definitive answer of whether it is safe to use or not.
throw_2021-07|4 years ago
* Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
* ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
In over a decade of software engineering, I've seen many reuses of Stack Overflow content, occasionally with links to underlying answers. All Stack Overflow content use I've seen would clearly fail the legal terms set out by the license.
I suspect Copilot usage will similarly fail a stringent interpretation of underlying licenses, and will similarly face essentially no enforcement.
[1] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/