Rendered at 14:41:45 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
FabCH 19 hours ago [-]
Surprisingly many people in the linked Reddit thread seem to think that open source license means Google can re-license the code and strip the author info.
Which is the one thing you absolutely cannot do.
thayne 14 hours ago [-]
It depends on the license, but for many open source licenses, that probably violates attribution requirements.
FabCH 10 hours ago [-]
I actually think that depending on jurisdiction it doesn’t even depend on the license.
I don’t think it is even possible to transfer the „moral right of attribution“ in some countries. So even if the license says so and the person is ok with it, the law takes precedence and Google’s actions are simply illegal.
bananaflag 19 hours ago [-]
They confuse it with public domain, which means exactly that.
PalmPilotProMax 9 hours ago [-]
The "opens source" rebranding exercise and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
bitpush 19 hours ago [-]
I took a look at the code, and it seems the author info was in pyproject.toml which is not license.
if there was a comment that said // TODO(username) and google removed all comments, is that violating any license?
FabCH 17 hours ago [-]
I mean, the authors field in pyproject.toml has a very clear interpretation. Removing authors and adding yourself is a different thing than removing a todo.
Irrespective of the entire NOTICE file question, Apache license text is pretty clear that you MUST retain attribution notices, and I think most courts would consider the line "author = " to be a clear attribution notice.
And then there is the question of them slapping "Copyright Google LLC 2026" on every file. I'm not sure you can do that unless you have actually modified every file, and I think you have to say what exactly you modified and what is covered by the old copyright, and that presumably requires them to say what the old copyright is.
thayne 14 hours ago [-]
And changing the commit history to change the authors goes even further than modifying a manifest file.
It seems like an open and shut case, and I hear this Google company might have a few $$$ to pay for a settlement ...
thayne 14 hours ago [-]
They also have a lot more money than you do to spend on lawyers
MarleTangible 19 hours ago [-]
We were blaming Bambu Lab, but apparently Google is no different.
20 hours ago [-]
19 hours ago [-]
augment_me 19 hours ago [-]
We are beyond this now, if you complain, they can have an agent rewrite it and then it's not copied anymore. It doesn't matter and the bigger wallet wins, let it go.
Which is the one thing you absolutely cannot do.
I don’t think it is even possible to transfer the „moral right of attribution“ in some countries. So even if the license says so and the person is ok with it, the law takes precedence and Google’s actions are simply illegal.
if there was a comment that said // TODO(username) and google removed all comments, is that violating any license?
Irrespective of the entire NOTICE file question, Apache license text is pretty clear that you MUST retain attribution notices, and I think most courts would consider the line "author = " to be a clear attribution notice.
And then there is the question of them slapping "Copyright Google LLC 2026" on every file. I'm not sure you can do that unless you have actually modified every file, and I think you have to say what exactly you modified and what is covered by the old copyright, and that presumably requires them to say what the old copyright is.
It seems like an open and shut case, and I hear this Google company might have a few $$$ to pay for a settlement ...