zlacker

In case anyone interprets this literally: if copilot regurgitates literal code it was trained on that doesn't actually give you an unencumbered version.

>>jefftk+(OP)
So how long till new software licenses that prohibit any use of code for model training purposes? I'd be willing to bet there's a significant group of people that won't be happy either its literal or not, the fact that it was used in the training might be enough.

>>vasco+12
The claim that most people training models make is that what they are doing is sufficiently transformative that it counts as fair use, and doesn't require a license. That means putting something in a software license that prohibits model training wouldn't do anything.

In this case, what the model is doing is clearly (to me as an non-lawyer) not transformative enough to count as fair use, but it's possible that the co-pilot folks will be able to fix this kind of thing with better output filtering.

>>jefftk+15
Prohibiting training would not affect the produced source, but it would make the training itself illegal.

>>Feepin+O7
Probably not? Models are trained on restrictively licensed things all the time, such as images that are still in copyright. This is generally believed to be fair use, though I think this has not been tested in court?