4 ms·

You licensed the code as MIT - https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs/blob/master/LICENSE-MIT https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs/blob/master/LICENSE-MIT Are you saying y

by mox1 3y ago

You licensed the code as MIT - https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs/blob/master/LICENSE-MIT https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs/blob/master/LICENSE-MIT Are you saying you have an issue with them copying your MIT licensed code?

ofek 3y ago
Yes, copying the code without following up to actually collaborate or even forking to show attribution I think is bad practice for such a large organization, or any entity for that matter.
- tantalor 3y ago
  If that's what you want, then update your license to require that.
  - ofek 3y ago
    Are you of the opinion that because a behavior is legal that necessarily makes it right in all cases? If so, I suppose that is where I disagree.
    - warent 3y ago
      You seem to be interpreting a license as a legal formality that shouldn't be taken so literally. It is a form of very explicit and literal communication. Unfortunately you sent an unambiguous message to the world inviting them to do this. (Disclaimer that I briefly worked at Google years ago) EDIT: Well OP did not give them permission to alter the license. Sorry this happened to you. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35791737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35791737
    - joecool1029 3y ago
      If their behavior annoys you, why not DMCA takedown the repo in retaliation for them stripping the copyright header? It'd be within your rights since they violated the license and sends a message they can't ignore. Otherwise if you're upset they otherwise used code you released under a permissive license that's a personal problem. You signaled to the world that you'd relax your copyright under a permissive license and don't like the results? This is like gifting something and being mad about how the gift was used. As others have pointed out you don't seem to grasp why licenses exist in the first place? No org or individual in general wants to play guessing games and risk liability. It's entirely on you to signal how you want your work to be used.
- toyg 3y ago
  Just to clarify - the licenses you chose do not require any collaboration or "give back", they only require minimal attribution buried in some readme. You can absolutely berate them for copying without attribution, but that's it; they don't owe you anything else.
soraminazuki 3y ago
If the GP is right, Google is violating the terms of the license. A quick search of the code reveals that Google's code doesn't include copyright headers with attribution to the GP. This could be stolen code.

by mox1 3y ago

ofek 3y ago

Yes, copying the code without following up to actually collaborate or even forking to show attribution I think is bad practice for such a large organization, or any entity for that matter.

tantalor 3y ago
If that's what you want, then update your license to require that.
- ofek 3y ago
  Are you of the opinion that because a behavior is legal that necessarily makes it right in all cases? If so, I suppose that is where I disagree.
  - warent 3y ago
    You seem to be interpreting a license as a legal formality that shouldn't be taken so literally. It is a form of very explicit and literal communication. Unfortunately you sent an unambiguous message to the world inviting them to do this. (Disclaimer that I briefly worked at Google years ago) EDIT: Well OP did not give them permission to alter the license. Sorry this happened to you. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35791737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35791737
  - joecool1029 3y ago
    If their behavior annoys you, why not DMCA takedown the repo in retaliation for them stripping the copyright header? It'd be within your rights since they violated the license and sends a message they can't ignore. Otherwise if you're upset they otherwise used code you released under a permissive license that's a personal problem. You signaled to the world that you'd relax your copyright under a permissive license and don't like the results? This is like gifting something and being mad about how the gift was used. As others have pointed out you don't seem to grasp why licenses exist in the first place? No org or individual in general wants to play guessing games and risk liability. It's entirely on you to signal how you want your work to be used.
toyg 3y ago
Just to clarify - the licenses you chose do not require any collaboration or "give back", they only require minimal attribution buried in some readme. You can absolutely berate them for copying without attribution, but that's it; they don't owe you anything else.

soraminazuki 3y ago

If the GP is right, Google is violating the terms of the license. A quick search of the code reveals that Google's code doesn't include copyright headers with attribution to the GP. This could be stolen code.