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
Searching for the function names in his libraries, I'm seeing some 32,000 hits.

I suspect he has a different problem which (thanks to Microsoft) is now a problem he has to care about: his code probably shows up in one or more repos copy-pasted with improper LGPL attribution. There'd be no way for Copilot to know that had happened, and it would have mixed in the code.

(As a side note: understanding why an ML engine outputs a particular result is still an open area of research AFAIK.)

>>shadow+Wf
Yeah that's a mess, but that's way too much legal baggage for me, an otherwise innocent end user, to want to take on. Especially when I personally tend to try and monetize a lot of my work.

I understand there's no way for the model to know, but it's really on Microsoft then to ensure no private, or poorly licensed or proprietary code is included in the training set. That sounds like a very tall order, but I think they're going to have to otherwise they're eventually going to run into legal problems with someone who has enough money to make it hurt for them.

>>ianbut+Wg
Open source code is open source when it license is obeyed only. When license is not obeyed, e.g. copyright notice is no reproduced, it should be treated as private code, except for dual-licensed code.