[joshcryer]

I always held the opinion that GPL etc was a copy-left license that was intended to make sure the code was free (free as in freedom not as in beer). That in an ideal world you wouldn't need the GPL or any licenses at all. At this point I really don't care what co-pilot or any of its derivatives result in and I think in the not too distant future we will have machine code to readable code translation which will enable more freedom. That is, it really won't matter if the code is compiled or not, when you can "AI decompile" it into human readable code, do your modifications, and then do with it what you will.

From that view let the data be free.

[pessimizer]

As long as this copyright violation laundering isn't reserved for the big guys, I'm happy for anything that confuses and delegitimizes the concept of copyright. But it is reserved for the big guys, you're going to get sued to death if you copy any of their work.

[drran]

GPL folks are completely OK with something like Copylot when GPL license is obeyed, so all emitted code, generated by AI trained on GPL code, is licensed under GPL again. It's not OK to call our code as «public code» and ignore our license.

[Siira]

But by repeating this argument you are strengthening copyright, which is the fundamental evil GPL was made to fight. There surely will be FOSS clones of Copilot in the near future. There is no need to feed the copyright lobby.

[ipaddr]

Some languages need to compile but others don't