undefined | Better HN

0 pointsghoward4y ago0 comments

You're right that code has to demonstrate creativity for copyright. But that also means that an algorithm, even a transformative algorithm, cannot change copyright because an algorithm is not creative, by definition.

This means that the output of any algorithm on copyrighted code is still under the original copyright. I mean, we still apply the copyright of the original to the output of compilers, even though compilers can be transformative with inlining and link-time optimization, to the point that it mixes disparate code in the same way Copilot does.

In fact, I wrote some software licenses [1] that codify the fact that algorithms cannot change copyright.

[1]: https://yzena.com/licenses/

0 comments

gradys4y ago

You sound very confident about this, whereas copyright lawyers I've read discuss this issue seem much less confident overall, but lean toward thinking this would be fair use.

What makes you so confident that this would not be ruled fair use?

(And for people not familiar - if ruled fair use, it doesn't matter what the license is because fair use is an exception to copyright itself.)

ghowardOP4y ago

I have a feeling you did not read the FAQ of the licenses. I don't blame you, but they explain my position.

Here's the relevant quote:

> GitHub is arguing that using FOSS code in Copilot is fair use because using data for training a machine learning algorithm has been labelled as fair use. [1]

> However, even though the training is supposedly fair use, that doesn’t mean that the distribution of the output of such algorithms is fair use.

My licenses say, basically, "Sure, training is fair use, but distributing the output is not."

The licenses specifically say that the copyright applies to any output of any algorithm that uses the source code code as all or part of its input.

Now, I have not gotten a lawyer to look at my licenses yet (it's in the works), so don't use them yourself. But because everyone keeps saying that training is fair use, I'm fairly confident that only training is fair use.

Of course, it might not be, but that would take more court cases and more precedent. I wanted to poison the well now [2] to make companies nervous about using a model that was partially trained with code licensed under my licenses.

[1]: https://valohai.com/blog/copyright-laws-and-machine-learning...

[2]: https://gavinhoward.com/2021/07/poisoning-github-copilot-and...

seoaeu4y ago

> My licenses say, basically, "Sure, training is fair use, but distributing the output is not."

Licenses basically by definition cannot say what is and isn't fair use...

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse