Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

No, that was there, but it doesn’t contradict my interpretation. Copyright doesn’t only cover reproducing code verbatim. It also includes derivative works.


Maybe in court which interprets software dev very strictly, but in practice a developer automatically copying a single function from some 'freemium' style licensed library [1] posted publicly on Github - getting autocompleted into a different codebase with many thousands of lines of custom code isn't the same as going into some proprietary codebase and stealing their code to compete / build the same product as another company.

We could come up with scenarios where there might be some fancy algorithms posted on some public Git repo that's super efficient or unique, and that somehow fits into the size of individual functions that could be auto-inserted into some other person's codebase. But IRL that sort of thing is rarely ever going to be the thing that these IDE tools do. At least in a way that meaningfully contributes to another project.

That is still a concern yes, but it's still a niche usecase, which doesn't justify killing off otherwise extremely useful tools.

Maybe I'm being too techno-libertarian here, but I believe existing courts + public feedback cycles + iterating on how the public code is consumed by these tools + spreading awareness of the issue is enough to address the licensing problems.

The more accurately we explain the problem, the quicker we'll find good solutions.

[1] usually licensing saying commercial projects need to either pay or not use it at all. Or some attribution clause


"Maybe I'm being too techno-libertarian here, but I believe existing courts + public feedback cycles + iterating on how the public code is consumed + spreading awareness of the issue is enough to address the licensing problems."

I think you are, though. You have to automate the justice as well, traditional courts can't keep pace. You'll just end up with more automated DMCA-style takedowns, not less.


I think you misunderstood my comment then (or how these tools work IRL)... because I'm not saying that it's even worthy of a court case in the vast majority of cases. So why would you need to automate such a thing?

And I don't even see how an automated DMCA system could exist because I doubt they'd win monetary damages in court over a 'stolen' function or two (or detect it in most commercial applications in the first place).

Regardless a single class action should be enough to make Microsoft either shut down their project or adapt (via whistleblowers, leaked code, public repos, etc). And regardless if they don't adapt by investing in the possible solutions here, an OSS project could take it's place eventually and the courts wouldn't even be a useful solution.

Ideally a capital-backed company will help solve this, with the obvious legal incentives that already exist. But even if it doesn't this isn't going away.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: