The article would be right for most cases with little code but not for complete function declarations and parts of code as is happening.
Sure, but that is already covered by existing copyright. It is the same as cut&pasting some larger code pieces from Stackoverflow without knowing where it originally came from.
Hmm, how do I explain better… the co-pilot is just a tool, just like you can abuse cut&paste to copy code out of any project regardless of the license, so can this copilot.
In the end it still matters what you as the programmer do, and when you make the copilot just paste large parts of code that you don’t understand and don’t know where it originally comes from (like most of the code found on stackoverflow) then it is probably better not to release that code publicly where anyone can compare it to copyrighted works.
Because even if you you didn’t know you were making an copyright infringement (because the copilot helped you do it), it still is a copyright infringement never the less.
Yes, I didn’t think on it at all but given that my classmates in SysAdmin and WebDev vocational training were copy-pasting code in their projects and were most of them… I think this will finish in a big problem.
Sure, but that is already covered by existing copyright. It is the same as cut&pasting some larger code pieces from Stackoverflow without knowing where it originally came from.
I don’t understand what do you mean.
But as far as this can be considered a module of the program, it is violating the license, and can be with this size.
The same can happens if what you copied from a forum is protected.
The case with Stackoverflow depends on their license and size too, which I didn’t read but should be explained in their terms and conditions.
Hmm, how do I explain better… the co-pilot is just a tool, just like you can abuse cut&paste to copy code out of any project regardless of the license, so can this copilot.
In the end it still matters what you as the programmer do, and when you make the copilot just paste large parts of code that you don’t understand and don’t know where it originally comes from (like most of the code found on stackoverflow) then it is probably better not to release that code publicly where anyone can compare it to copyrighted works.
Because even if you you didn’t know you were making an copyright infringement (because the copilot helped you do it), it still is a copyright infringement never the less.
Aaaaaaaaah in that sense. Now I understood you.
Yes, I didn’t think on it at all but given that my classmates in SysAdmin and WebDev vocational training were copy-pasting code in their projects and were most of them… I think this will finish in a big problem.
The article already sets the position about “irrelevant parts” to be considered in the copyright.
The comment I point sets something away of that scope.