Alternative theory: you're overconfident and wrong, and haven't even read the tweet I shared. CoPilot is observed to reproduce entire files (less two lines), down to variable names and comments, verbatim, from a repo that's covered by the LGPL.
If verbatim copies are not covered by copyright, then software can effectively never be copyrighted. And that there would be an extreme departure from "reality."
regarding your edit: this is a verbatim copy. The process you're describing is actually strengthening, not weakening, my argument. It allows material dissimilarity in the face of an overall similarity. Whatever process is meant to be applied to the licensed code and the allegedly infringing code, it will produce identical output given identical input. You're attempting to claim that the entire file would be deleted by the process and that the remainder would be an empty comparison which would (granted) be covered by fair use. And since CoPilot has been shown to redistribute multiple files, your "case" would hinge upon the entire repository not being covered by copyright. This is beyond absurd.
edit 2:
> Or don't! Just keep downvoting in support of your fantasies! Wheeeeee!
Please review the site guidelines. You're both whining about downvotes and sneering at the community with this. Probably time to take a break from the keyboard.
> In a computer program, the lowest level of abstraction, the concrete code of the program, is clearly expression, while the highest level of abstraction, the general function of the program, might be better classified as the idea behind the program.
Copilot is alleged to be reproducing blocks of code verbatim, which fall into the expression side of the idea/expression distinction, which by your own links and statements appears to show that the allegations against Copilot are not false.
I'm not going to say you're necessarily disagreeing with reality (I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean) but you're certainly contradicting the evidence you've brought.
> In a computer program, the lowest level of abstraction, the concrete code of the program, is clearly expression, while the highest level of abstraction, the general function of the program, might be better classified as the idea behind the program.
Seems to be trying to force everything associated with programming into a false “expressive/abstract idea” divide. Abstract ideas are distinct from expression and not subject to copyright, but not everything outside of the scope of copyright is abstract rather than detailed: notably, functional elements.
No, it's an illustration of two ends of spectrum, and only one of three parts of AFC. All I'm saying is that the original comment gave us three links and that they didn't strictly agree with what the comment said without further elaboration.
I will say, though, that the allegations of basically copying and pasting exact instances of substantive portions of copyrighted codebase appear to be at one end of the spectrum.
Things like code comments are clearly expressive and not utilitarian (you don’t need comments to compile code and you can express the ideas of these comments with different verbiage without loss of efficiency).
For what it's worth I've found the links you've provided very interesting and insightful! It's bringing back bits and pieces of some of the software license training I've got at various jobs in the past.
