Posts by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
(DIR) Post #AKpDCVbUU0AM4GlcK8 by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-06-24T20:19:20Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Finally, I can officially announce my new project: #Grammle! It's a collection of đ©đȘ #German grammar mistakes with a concise summary for each rule.Follow @grammle and visit its website: https://grammle.codeberg.page đOf course, its source code is hosted at #Codeberg and licensed under #ForGoodEyesOnly v0.2: https://codeberg.org/Grammle/Grammle đ
(DIR) Post #ALNncDMs2yzV50fYjw by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-07-10T18:29:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Why GitHub #Copilot doesnât violate free software licencesđ https://forgoodeyesonly.codeberg.page/blog/2022/07/why-github-copilot-doesnt-violate-free-licences#GitHubâs new code completion is an #AI trained using #FreeSoftware. Many see this as a copyright infringement of #copyleft licences, but this is dangerous half-knowledge. Read here why this is the case and why stricter #copyright law wonât get us anywhere.#foss #license #licence #microsoft
(DIR) Post #ALNncEGsgjnHsisI2i by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-07-10T18:30:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
TL;DR:Scraping code simply isn't a #copyright infringement.#Copilot outputs are no derivative works.As an artificial machine, Copilot is not an author in the meaning of copyright.#GitHub doesnât even claim copyright in the outputs.The outputs donât reach the necessary level of creation to be copyright-protected.The AI's complexity is irrelevant for the protection of the outputs.GitHub's terms of use override the repo licences.
(DIR) Post #ALNncEtAOOQ1nSmria by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-07-10T21:17:10Z
1 likes, 2 repeats
While #GitHub #Copilot doesn't violate free #software licences (see âŹïž), there are plenty of reasons to #GiveUpGithub anyway. Here are a few:1. Since we're #FOSS developers, our tools should be #FreeSoftware too.2. Monopolies are never a good idea.3. By using a walled garden, we're excluding potential contributors.4. By using #Microsoft products, we're supporting a producer of #tracking malware and an #NSA collaborator.Instead, we should switch to #Git platforms running @gitea, such as @codeberg. Also, @dachary and others are already working hard on #forge federation in the @forgefriends project.Read more on the #ForGoodEyesOnly blog: https://forgoodeyesonly.codeberg.page/blog/2022/07/why-github-copilot-doesnt-violate-free-licences/#why-we-should-still-giveupgithub
(DIR) Post #ALYN15cEzMHYPhDTQO by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-07-15T21:52:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aral I argue that #Copilot doesn't violate #Copyleft licences for multiple reasons. Most importantly, #GitHub's terms of use most likely override the repos' chosen licences, allowing #Microsoft to use any code uploaded there. Also, Copilot's outputs are too small to be copyright-protectable. Though, there are more reasons as well as other things to consider too: https://forgoodeyesonly.codeberg.page/blog/2022/07/why-github-copilot-doesnt-violate-free-licences/
(DIR) Post #ALeImr0wtlJtLYXK40 by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-07-19T12:15:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicemicro @aral Good idea! On their website, they say they waive all copyright. đ€·đ
(DIR) Post #AM5RrnEP3N56uP8MUK by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-08-01T13:39:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki I don't âsupportâ GitHub, I advocate against using it. The article simply explains why Copilot isn't illegal. Please understand the difference.Call what Copilot does whatever you want; re-arranging the characters of a copyright-protected work doesn't constitute a copyright infringement whatsoever.Those few excerpts that are copied verbatim are not copyright-protectable because they are too short for that (in 99% less than 150 chars). And yes, size isn't the only factor for copyright protection â even longer excerpts might be not protectable.Verbatim copying is not magically impossible just because one has âlearntâ from code. Take the Fibonacci sequence for example: https://scribe.citizen4.eu/developers-writing/fibonacci-sequence-algorithm-in-javascript-b253dc7e320e There just aren't that many different ways of implementing it. There are tons of similar situations where even a human would repeat âsomeone else'sâ code, knowingly or unknowingly.
(DIR) Post #AM5RrnwMPwF96jhT0K by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-08-01T13:58:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki The SFC's lawyers absolutely do know âa hell of a lotâ more than me, but that doesn't change anything about the legal situation, you know? Funny how, for some reason, you seem to think that a billion-dollar company has not made sure not to risk tons of lawsuits.Also, you might be interested in this paper by John A. Rothchild, Professor of Law, Wayne State University, and Daniel H. Rothchild, PhD candidate, University of California, who argue that âCopilot and its developer-customers likely do not infringe developersâ copyrightsâ: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/copilot/copyright-implications-of-the-use-of-code-repositories-to-train-a-machine-learning-modelThere are regularly instances of F-Droid apps (even the F-Droid store itself) being sold on Google Play by third parties, sometimes even including ads and trackers. You might find that a great example of software freedom but I don't.
(DIR) Post #AM5RrosUvmkQ12ttce by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-08-01T13:43:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki Compilers only translate the source code into machine code without changing anything about the funcionality, and they're so simple they're merely a tool of the programmer.Well, âintellectual propertyâ might be an oxymoron, but that doesn't change the fact that it's core to copyright law.Author right's don't need to be overridden, GitHub just needs sufficient usage rights, which are in fact granted by the ToS.Yes, uploading copyleft works to a third-party service, whose ToS aren't copyleft-compliant, is most likely a copyright infringement by the uploader.
(DIR) Post #AM5Rrs5iz46tyw709g by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-08-01T14:18:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki If you knew what the term âproprietaryâ means, you'd understand that something like âproprietary licencesâ doesn't exist: https://forgoodeyesonly.codeberg.page/blog/2022/06/a-defence-of-ethical-licencing/#there-are-no-proprietary-licencesThe main purpose of the For Good Eyes Only Licence is banning privacy invasions, for example by including third-party trackers in the derivative work. It doesn't make sense to ban something (in this context) as âtrivialâ as GDPR violations but on the other hand not to care about something much worse like human rights infringements.Copyleft prevents licensees from uploading derivative works to third-party services whose ToS aren't copyleft-compliant, which is basically a form of vendor lock-in.If you think stricter copyright law would âstrengthen copyleftâ, you must be a troll. It would mean that trivial code fragments, like said implementation of the Fibonacci sequence, would be copyright-protected, so that it would be much more easy to unknowingly commit IP infringements. Read this for reference: https://felixreda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright
(DIR) Post #AM5Rrtfv5yeotU3QDA by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-08-01T14:20:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki The argument of copyright organisations is that ad-blockers modify websites in whole (not the JavaScript), by removing the ads from the display visible to the user.
(DIR) Post #AM5WDdwUfZ1UHsQnuy by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-08-01T15:06:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki I'm not talking about re-arrangements of the work, but of its characters. What I was referring to is that most of Copilot's outputs have nothing in common with the analysed code, other than the syntax of the programming language used.There is no universal minimum length for copyright protection; it's always case-dependent and usually very complex. I mean, there could be two works of the same length; one of them might condense significant artistic value into minimal volume, while the other one is nothing but a bloat of uncreative, generic commands.If you don't know you're infringing upon someone else's copyright, you aren't punished â but that doesn't make the copyright infringement itself legal.Compilers: Hm, that's not exactly what I meant. I was more referring to the fact that compilers always produce âexpectedâ outputs, or in other words: the same output for the same input.
(DIR) Post #AM5WDeY4Pr54AQ0oUK by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-08-01T15:07:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki âAs long as the license has been complied with, any users can just strip garbage outâWell, not only garbage, but dangerous garbage, that's the problem. I just don't want to allow anyone to misuse my creations for the purpose of harming others.
(DIR) Post #AM5YvQ0O34p7iCFn96 by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-08-01T15:31:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki By definition, licences grant rights, therefore they can't reserve all rights (that's the default due to copyright law), which is exactly what âproprietaryâ means. âProprietaryâ is not a synonym for ânot OSD-compliantâ.Almost everyone who violates the GDPR is not something like a human rights violator or war criminal etc. For example, the German national railway company is currently being sued for violating the GDPR by including mandatory trackers in their app. According to the For Good Eyes Only Licence, that would also be a copyright infringement (if the app was a derivative work).
(DIR) Post #AM5YvQruq3dqODIXa4 by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-08-01T15:31:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki Almost every single content hosting platform has got ToS that allow them to use the content in ways that violate standard copyleft provisions. That's not unique to GitHub, but is also the case for GitLab and Gitea (servers). Therefore, if one is not a lawyer, the only way to make sure you don't commit a copyright infringement by re-distributing a copyleft work is not uploading derivative works to third-party services, but only to that service used by the original work. That is a de-facto vendor lock-in. It would be possible to host the code oneself on one's own server, but that's not an actual option for most developers.
(DIR) Post #AM5YvRKz5ytTqMtktE by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-08-01T15:36:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki âYes, trivial code fragments are copyrightableâThat's plainly false. I'd suggest re-reading § 69a UrhG.Regarding the ad-blocking stuff you're completely right. Your arguments are similar to the Hamburg regional court's argumentation why ad-blockers don't constitute copyright infringement.
(DIR) Post #AM5ZVxAeDXr2zvTT6G by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-08-01T15:53:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki âyes you can be [punished], as copyright infringement is always a crime⧠15 StGB clearly says: âUnless the law expressly provides for criminal liability for negligent conduct, only intentional conduct attracts criminal liability.â And § 106 UrhG doesn't say anything about negligent conduct.If you're saying that prohibiting the use of one's creations for the purpose of harming others is âtyrannicalâ, then, by your own logic, you must be a war crimes advocate.Just like free speech doesn't mean you can say literally anything, software freedom shouldn't mean that you can use the software for literally any purpose â but only for those purposes that aren't destructive for society.Have you heard of the paradox of tolerance (rhetorical question)?
(DIR) Post #AM5b40JP92DSXYN30i by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-08-01T16:05:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki âI'm talking about USA copyrightâWhy then are you commenting on a blog article that deals with European law and uses German law as an example? (Also, FYI, the For Good Eyes Only Licence enforces the GDPR regardless of the licensee's jurisdiction.)âuse literally any git host without nonfree termsâCan you name a few?Yes, that's the one I meant. Though, the devil is in the details, particularly in the phrase â[... ] if they represent individual works in the sense that they are the result of the authorâs own intellectual creationâ. The terms âindividual workâ and âintellectual creationâ both refer to the level of artistic creation necessary for copyright protection. And that level just isn't reached by short excerpts, according to common interpretation.
(DIR) Post #AP3agQ3VruwwCmh79E by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-10-29T10:13:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I wanted to boost a few #introduction posts from well-known #Twitter users on Privacy Guide 1984, but I couldn't even log into the @datenschutzratgeber profile on mastodon.social.Seemingly, #ElonMusk has caused yet another wave of migration towards #Mastodon! đ„ł
(DIR) Post #APKdAvQVAne51T4o5o by pixelcodeapps@mstdn.social
2022-11-06T15:45:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bfdi Weil ich gern in der Technische-Informatik-Vorlesung stolz meinen BfDI-Becher auspacken will, um genĂŒsslich meinen morgendlichen Kakao zu schlĂŒrfen! Muss immer schon vor 6:00 Uhr aufstehen, da brauche ich einen Wachmacher :(