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
The code is not GPL but is copyrighted in his name.

>>IncRnd+Wn
GPL'd code has a copyright owner.

those two things exist at the same time.

try reading a licence now and again!

>>naikro+QC
Slow down there with the snarky comments. I never said GPL'd code doesn't have a copyright owner.

>>IncRnd+XN
Any code is proprietary by default. GNU GPL license lifts some restrictions, in excange of more code, but it doesnt work when license is broken. Look at cases about GPL violation.

Copiloot doesn't obey GPL license, so they need to obtain written permission and pay license fees to be able to use code in their product.