zlacker

>>davidg+(OP)
I just tested it myself on a random c file I created in the middle of a rust project I'm working on, it reproduced his full code verbatim from just the function header so clearly it does regurgitate proprietary code unlike some people have said, I do not have his source so co-pilot isn't just using existing context.

I've been finding co-pilot really useful but I'll be pausing it for now, and I'm glad I have only been using it on personal projects and not anything for work. This crosses the line in my head from legal ambiguity to legal "yeah that's gonna have to stop".

>>ianbut+ce
what proprietary code? the guy on Twitter is seeing his own GPL code bring reproduced. nothing proprietary there.

do you have the "don't reproduce code verbatim" preference set?

>>naikro+Of
He owns the copyright to the code, and the code is not in the public domain, therefore it is proprietary code.

>>webstr+gg
That's not how anybody uses the word proprietary when dealing with software licensing. It's a term of art that stands in contrast to open source licenses.

>>yjftsj+Lg
For the record, I don't typically think in terms of the open source community.

I grant that if most people are using it one way here I was likely wrong for the way it is typically used by the normal open source community, I followed up with a reply saying it would likely be more correct for me to have said "improperly licensed" to be included in the training set.

Still it being private means it probably shouldn't be in the training set anyway regardless of license, because in the future, truly proprietary code could be included, or code without any license which reserves all right to the creator.