DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering [LWN.net]

DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

Posted Jun 25, 2022 14:23 UTC (Sat) by eduperez (guest, #11232)
In reply to: DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering by bluca
Parent article: DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

> Training of the model is not done under the terms of any license. It's done under the copyright directive laws, which give an exception on copyright rules when doing text and data mining, for any purpose. I don't see how there's any 'legal mush'.

I do not think anybody is arguing about the model training, but the output from the model once it has been trained.

If the model produces an output that is a verbatim copy of some GPL'd code (see https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309 for an example), is that code free now, just because it was produced by some AI? Or is it still protected by the GPL, because it is a derivative work? When can we consider that the output has been produced by the AI, and when can we consider it is still a derived work? This is the legal mush.

to post comments

DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

Posted Jun 25, 2022 21:27 UTC (Sat) by Vipketsh (guest, #134480) [Link] (1 responses)

I think rgmoore and NYKevin answered that question pretty convincingly in their replies to my comment above: if you believe that your code exists in something it shouldn't you argue that and courts don't care how it got to where it shouldn't have, only if it is there or not. Perhaps I can put it another way: what the AI model produces doesn't matter, only where that output ends up in.

Even so, I still think that the legal status of the "AI model" warrants further introspection. When talking about open source code the "AI model" isn't much of a consideration because at worst it stores code in some cryptic way that is available in a much more easier digested form. But that changes a whole lot if the training material is some propriety code stolen from somewhere. If your "AI model" is able to reproduce the stolen code verbatim (or sufficient parts for copyright to apply) and training of the "AI model" is "give an exception on copyright rules when doing text and data mining, for any purpose" (bluca's words) that should mean that this trained "AI model" is fully legal and thus a legal distribution mechanism for the stolen code. Surely there is a legal principal to prevent things to work out this way ? At what point does an "AI model" turn into a "distribution mechanism" ?

DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

Posted Jun 26, 2022 9:46 UTC (Sun) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link]

The TDM provisions in the copyright directive apply only for legally accessible corpora. A stolen body of code cannot be data mined legally just because it's available, it needs to be legally available.