zlacker

>>orph+(OP)
Still no way to opt your code out of this.

Disgusting.

>>snvzz+1o
Legally, it needs to be opt-in in order to protect downstream consumers of code written by Copilot.

Copilot sometimes reproduces code verbatim. You can't use open source code except under the terms of the license. Authors whose code may be reproduced by Copilot need to grant a license to downstream consumers, and republishers of Copilot-generated code need to adhere to the terms of that license.

Copilot is inserting ticking time-bombs into its users' codebases.

>>rectan+aq
Only if the threshold of originality is passed. I feel many of Copilot snippets are so tiny that this threshold is not reached. But not a judge here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality

>>miohta+ct
If it is relevant at all, the threshold of originality applies to the allegedly-copyrighted source consumed by Copilot (as regards bare infringement, not wilfull infringement). If that doesn't meet the threshold, it is not copyrightable. If it is, unauthorized copying not within a copyright exception (e.g., fair use) is infringement.

I can't see any case where originality of the snippet presented by Copilit matters (if Copilot were a person, it would matter to determining if the snippet on its own was copyrightable by Copilot, but still wouldn't be relevant to whether to original copyright was violated.)