I'm an open source audio coder. I'm not any great shakes as a programmer but I make my living by regularly coming up with novel ideas, and my codebase is on Github and MIT licensed. Over the course of hundreds of DSP plugins, some key parts are very repetitive.
This means that there are audio processing algorithms I do which NOBODY ELSE is doing, because they're unusual and in some ways arbitrarily wrong. They're chosen to produce a particular sound rather than the textbook-correct algorithm output. Example: interleaved IIR filters, to make the audio interact differently in the midrange and produce a lower Q factor at the cost of producing some odd artifacts near the Nyquist frequency.
Nobody out there in the normal world or commercial DSP or academia would intend to do that, because there are significant reasons not to (which I work around, in context). But if that stuff appears in Copilot output, they are jacking my INTENT but violating the very lenient MIT license by stripping my credit. They'd also be misleading hapless audio programmers who didn't intend to adopt my techniques, but that's a side issue.
I'm interested in who else out there has a substantial codebase subject to Copilot reprocessing, who is demonstrating intent that isn't 'normal' and doesn't exist in the 'normal' world of whatever domain's being coded for.
The point is, can it be demonstrated that Microsoft is taking SPECIFIC things from specific open source developers that can be clearly traced back to one source of distinct intentions, and then stripping the licensing? I feel like said intentions cannot be 'normal and industry-standard and correct'. It's gotta be things like my IIR interleaving, where it's a quirky choice you wouldn't automatically do, very likely with costs and consequences in its own right. Something you could choose to adopt if you liked the trade-offs (or in my case, the sound).
I'm an open source audio coder. I'm not any great shakes as a programmer but I make my living by regularly coming up with novel ideas, and my codebase is on Github and MIT licensed. Over the course of hundreds of DSP plugins, some key parts are very repetitive.
This means that there are audio processing algorithms I do which NOBODY ELSE is doing, because they're unusual and in some ways arbitrarily wrong. They're chosen to produce a particular sound rather than the textbook-correct algorithm output. Example: interleaved IIR filters, to make the audio interact differently in the midrange and produce a lower Q factor at the cost of producing some odd artifacts near the Nyquist frequency.
Nobody out there in the normal world or commercial DSP or academia would intend to do that, because there are significant reasons not to (which I work around, in context). But if that stuff appears in Copilot output, they are jacking my INTENT but violating the very lenient MIT license by stripping my credit. They'd also be misleading hapless audio programmers who didn't intend to adopt my techniques, but that's a side issue.
I'm interested in who else out there has a substantial codebase subject to Copilot reprocessing, who is demonstrating intent that isn't 'normal' and doesn't exist in the 'normal' world of whatever domain's being coded for.
The point is, can it be demonstrated that Microsoft is taking SPECIFIC things from specific open source developers that can be clearly traced back to one source of distinct intentions, and then stripping the licensing? I feel like said intentions cannot be 'normal and industry-standard and correct'. It's gotta be things like my IIR interleaving, where it's a quirky choice you wouldn't automatically do, very likely with costs and consequences in its own right. Something you could choose to adopt if you liked the trade-offs (or in my case, the sound).