I am a lawyer and tried to find this new language but none of the legal documents I looked at appear to be updated to reflect any of this. Microsoft has a lot of different docs and it's a little confusing but the ones for Copilot are straightforward and none of those have changed any indemnity-related provisions since the spring.
OP here. If you own the copyright to a work, you can license it in any way you like. You can offer it to some people under a commercial license and to other people under an open source license. Many entities practices dual (or tri or whatever) licensing. When you post things on GitHub, you are essentially dual licensing your work. You're providing it under a very broad license to GitHub and you are providing it under an OSS license (or whatever you like) to other GitHub users. Neither license takes precedence. One license applies to one group of people and the other license applies to the other group of people.
This is very similar to what happens when you sign a contributor agreement before contributing code to an open source project. When you sign the contributor agreement, you're granting a very broad license to your work to the project maintainers. They can then license your work out under any license they want. But likewise, because you are not granting them an exclusive license, you're free to put your contribution license out into the world under any license of your choosing separate and apart from the project that you contributed it to.
Technically, I think the scenario you're describing with AGPL code may well be possible and legal. But practically, I think people would stop using GitHub if they felt that doing so would lead to GitHub/Microsoft undercutting their projects, stealing their customers, or essentially stripping the project of any AGPL obligations. I think that from a business perspective, they're really gambling on the idea that developers will see Copilot as a big boon rather than a value suck. Time will tell whether their gamble has paid off.
Kate Downing here. This is an excellent question. So, just like YouTube, GitHub would likely argue that they are protected by the DMCA and that so long as they comply with DMCA take-down requests, they are not liable for copyright infringement (direct or indirect) for third party content posted to GitHub by people other than the copyright owners. Remember that the DMCA effectively shifts that due diligence you speak of away from providers of online services and onto copyright holders themselves. Without the DMCA, many businesses that rely on user-generated content just wouldn't exist because that due diligence isn't possible at scale - it's often not even possible for individual pieces of content because the publication of any copyrighted work can be very obscure and because in the US you can hold a copyright without formally registering it.
In practice, I think the entire open source world knows that people post each other's open source code on GitHub. Even projects that have very purposefully chosen to primarily use other services or self-host their source code are well aware that their code gets mirrored on GitHub and/or included in other people's repos on GitHub. Up until now, I don't think this has been controversial and I don't think GitHub gets a lot of takedown requests for this practice. I think most developers see this as a feature, not a bug. Copilot might make people rethink whether or not they want to start sending take-down requests but that'll be a tough call for a lot of people because withholding code from GitHub to avoid its usage in Copilot also effectively means making their code less easily available to the rest of the world. It may be very disruptive to other projects that include the copyright owner's code in their own projects.
I am an Open Source developer. My code is not on GitHub and never will be.
If my code was uploaded on GitHub, I would DMCA it because of Copilot, but it wouldn't matter because the information is already in the model. So the DMCA does not help here.
The only way it would help is if I could DMCA the entire model and force them to retrain without my code. As it stands, this lawsuit is the only way for GitHub to be reined in; I don't have the resources to do so on my own.
IANAL.
Also, about high impact, suppose Copilot has 1 million users that use it on average 10 times a day, 5 days a week. You claim that less than 1% of uses of Copilot would result in copyright violation. Let's assume 0.1%. How many times would copyright violation happen per day? It would happen 10,000 times per day. For five days a week.
It would take a mere twenty weeks (less than six months) to reach a million violations.
The problem is that they continue to be pushed out further and further from their jobs every year because cities like Palo Alto keep adding thousands of jobs and almost no housing. That means professionals like me get pushed out of PA, move somewhere cheaper, and end up pushing out people that make less. All of these things are tied together and at the end of the domino what you get is homelessness which we've seen spike in the last 5 years.
The problem in the Bay Area is that since 2010, we added about 500,000 jobs and only 50,000 housing units. Roughly speaking, jobs gives you a sense for demand and housing units give you a sense for supply. Our jobs-housing ratio is completely out of whack. That's what makes the Bay Area so expensive. I actually don't believe any of the nonsense about this being a "destination area" or that there is "insatiable demand" - the demand is directly driven by job growth and you can see that plainly. People are not moving here from Nebraska and taking on housing that is multiple times more expensive just because it's pretty here- they're doing it because they got a job offer here. So no, Topeka and Detroit don't have this problem because their jobs growth isn't so far out of whack from their housing growth.
Yes, I can rent. I can rent until I die. But how bizarre is it that you are telling me and everyone else who isn't wealth enough to have bought a house yet that we "insist" on buying and we should be happy to rent forever when we spent decades telling the baby boomers the exact opposite? As a country, we recognize the wealth building aspect of home ownership. We recognize the stability it gives people who don't have to worry about rent increases and who don't have to worry about pulling their kids out of their school. We see the value of people leaving their kids with homes after they die, not dusty rent checks. We recognize the value of people putting down roots in their community and investing in it. We gave the baby boomers the mortgage interest rate deduction, Prop 13, and the GI bill and numerous other programs to make sure that everyone in the middle class could have a home to call their own.
Now you're saying that it was fine for the American dream for boomers to involve home ownership but if a Millennial wants the same benefits then they're "entitled" and "insisting"?
The absurd cost of housing in this country and the declining rates of homeownership are directly tied to the massive divergence we're seeing between rich and poor in this country and the shrinking middle class. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/19/meet-...
Hey, I think you're being unfair here, attributing a wide range of beliefs to me that I never stated, nor do I believe. That's really unfair. I said in another post: I hear that you're angry, but it's not OK to lash out or claim that I'm arguing something I'm not.
Anyway, with regards to home ownership: I'm personally of the belief that home ownership has been massively oversold as a benefit. I've been in the Bay Area for 25 years, from undergrad to staff engineer at an internet firm. Over the various dot-booms and dot-busts, I saw people moving further from the Bay Area and taking on insane commutes due to the desire to own homes. For example, many Stanford employees purchased in Tracy(!), then experienced massive financial failures when that area depreciated.
I'd like to see Prop 13 die in a fire. Unlikely to ever happen.
So, as you say, you're moving out of Palo Alto because the costs to buy there are too high. However, Santa Cruz isn't particularly cheap nor is it significantly cheaper than my own area, San Mateo, which has a 20 minute commute to Palo Alto.
If you had just said, "$90K/year in an area 30 minute commute to PA", I wouldn't have complained at all. The problem here is insisting on living directly in PA weakens the argument (it's specious) because there is no specific reason for a person to have to live in PA. There are more affordable communities around within 30 minutes commute. I feel like you're insisting that people who support a community must live (and own) in that city. I don't think that's a rational requiment.
Again, none of my argument is based on the systemic issues in the Bay Area (or anywhere with a booming economy and a large number of well-capitalized buyers), which I freely admit is a problem.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Yes, I personally can go live 30 minutes away. So how far away should the teachers live, then? The police? Because if I can afford San Mateo, then that means they largely can't. So where are they going? Is it acceptable for them to be coming up to PA from Gilroy? Tracy? Stockton? At what point do we say that we've created a ridiculous system in which people are needlessly spending years of their lives in traffic and throwing rent money in the toilet all because we can't build some more apartment building next to our jobs centers? I'm not insisting that city work live or own in PA, I'm highlighting that they can't own anywhere near PA, since, as you state, even 30 minutes out of PA is where two-income professionals can afford, not them.
101 to Gilroy will often be faster and saner than 17 to Santa Cruz... sorry but you are in for some serious commute pain. Even people who only need to go as far as Summit Road eventually crack. 17 was never designed for commute traffic
Simply put, in your situation I would head to Texas. Sucks, but Santa Cruz is also gentrifying and you are already too late to catch a break there. You fought the good fight, there are other great places to live.
I would be on suicide watch if I had to take 17 every day. It is beyond awful and every day there is some lane-closing accident etc. The State will discourage more coastal development: 17 will never be improved...to do so would mean more development in precisely the areas the State wants to protect....coast and redwood forests
Don't be discouraged! YIMBY groups are popping up all over the Bay Area working to make a difference in their cities. Join a group's mailing list and show up at your city council when they ask you to. Easy. Bring enough friends and we'll see real change.
A small minority of NIMBY homeowners can capture and control a city council fairly easily. When you are well off (and are retired or independently wealthy and don't work...) and you're in a town of 65,000, that really means there are maybe at most 1000 people actually going to City Council and paying any attention to it. That means that if you've lived there for 30 years, you know all of them and your networks are very deep. So, a small minority who has time and resources can effect a lot. And meanwhile young people, working people, people with young kids, people working 2-3 jobs, etc they're not paying attention, they don't have those deep networks, and frankly they only show up to vote in presidential elections. Plus, people who like how things are going, don't really dig into this stuff and have no reason to think anything is wrong. If you think Palo Alto "is on fire" and "going to hell in a hand basket" because you have to drive by a new apartment building, then you show up to council and you show up to vote. But if you have no issue with new buildings, you've got no reason to show up and you're far less concerned with voting. So, problem #1 is that people who are most affected are not paying attention or do not know that they should be paying attention.
Problem #2 is as outlined in the article above. When every city council is captured by existing homeowners, no town decides to add housing. Every town prefers to add jobs that bring in tax revenues but thinks they have little to gain from allowing more housing, because of the attendant infrastructure costs (like new schools). And so collectively, they make choices that drive up the cost of housing, drive people away from jobs centers, create homelessness, and which contribute to income inequality as people spend more and more money on housing because of an artificial constraint on housing supply. Added together, this stuff hurts our economy and it's killing off the middle class.
Industries are successful when they cluster. It's why you see entertainment in LA, insurance in Chicago, biotech in North Carolina, banks in NY, and think tanks and defense contractors in DC. As we move away from manufacturing and into a knowledge economy, being able to quickly exchange and improve on ideas with other people becomes more and more valuable. It's why the entire world is seeing a massive movement toward urbanization. We are not going to see high tech companies set up in places with few potential employees, no research universities, no investors, and no potential partners. It's simply not going to happen even if it looks like the easy way out. If you consider your own fortunes and you consider joining a young up and coming company that is risky because it has a high chance of failure, I think you'll find you are much more comfortable with that risk if your town has hundreds of other employers for you to go to afterwards, rather than just a small handful. The Internet does not and cannot replace the connections you form by accidentally meeting people at coffee shops or parties. Knowing and seeing people on the street in real life has more value and builds more trust than a text message. Do you think that calling your mom is the same thing as visiting her in person? Do you think you could be a good parent via Skype? Of course not. So why do you think that business relationships are any different?
> Do you think that calling your mom is the same thing as visiting her in person? Do you think you could be a good parent via Skype? Of course not. So why do you think that business relationships are any different?
Because familial relationships are not transactional in the same way that business relationships are?
Business relationships are also relationships. The first people a small company hires are the people they're friends with or friendly with. The people who invest in you are more likely to be your social acquaintances or friends. You won't even get a meeting with an investor in many cases unless you have a common connection. Partnerships are formed all the time between people who also are on the same soccer team, etc. People in business also have people they like and that they don't like and that they're friends with outside of work. I have coworkers, but I also go to their BBQs and their birthday parties - they're still human beings. When people are entrusting each other with the fates of their companies, their employees, and their own personal wealth, they need a high degree of trust.
You sound like someone who has never actually had to work in a multinational company before or with remote team members. Anyone who has can tell you that things are much easier when co-workers know each other personally and become friendly with each other than when they're just strangers to you on the other end of the email. It changes how you respond to them.How likely you are to misunderstand them. How likely you are to respond with kindness or terseness. And it changes how you feel about your job in general. When you go into work and you like the people you work with and you consider yourself their friend, you're far more likely to like your job overall and stay there. If you treat your entire work life as a "transaction" then you're far less likely to be happy with your work life.
