Nat Friedman had this to say:
>In terms of the permissibility of training on public code, the jurisprudence here – broadly relied upon by the machine learning community – is that training ML models is fair use.
>In terms of the permissibility of training on public code, the jurisprudence here – broadly relied upon by the machine learning community – is that training ML models is fair use.
Anything that is licensed has some level of exclusivity on it, and therefore it is not Public Domain.
What are you basing that? Especially when this is what is on the Copilot FAQ:
>GitHub Copilot is powered by OpenAI Codex, a new AI system created by OpenAI. It has been trained on a selection of English language and source code from publicly available sources, including code in public repositories on GitHub.
Absolutely zero mentions of public domain.
2) If an author did grant license to his code, then somebody, but not anybody, can use the code according to license.
3) If a somebody refuses to comply with license, then he permanently loses the right to use the code under such license, so then see (1).
>In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-...
this is false. Fair Use is not about the license, it is a set of exemptions from copyright. for example I do not need a license to reproduce and publish a snippet of book for the proposes of review / criticism. The author may not like what I have to say, and did not grant me a license but I certainly can use the snippet under copy right law.
The Legal Experts of ML are relaying I believe on the "education" exemption in Fair use for their "training of ML models is fair use". That will be an interesting case for sure