3 ms·

I think the repo was also cloned here... <https://github.com/yoshi-code-bot/elixir-google-api/commit/d7a637f4391b2174a2cf43ee11e6577a204a161e https://github.com

I think the repo was also cloned here... <https://github.com/yoshi-code-bot/elixir-google-api/commit/d7a637f4391b2174a2cf43ee11e6577a204a161e https://github.com/yoshi-code-bot/elixir-google-api/commit/d...> and considering the original repo is apache 2... not sure they can legally force them to be removed.

jart 2y ago
What am I looking at?
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  You're looking at a commit that contains all of the leaked files/documentation conveniently on the directory view on side of the github page.
  - jart 2y ago
    That tells me literally nothing. This is all machine generated boilerplate code. This isn't executive emails or documents. Since when are comments written by nameless workers an authoritative newsworthy leak on corporate policy? It probably tells us something about what sort of things workers at Google have researched, e.g. csam, scams, racism. If I grep for SEO then I see some database fields for their pagespeed service that mentions accessibility audits and progressive web apps. Looks pretty consistent with what Google has always said publicly. Where's the specific code that's generating all the shock and outrage?
    - JohnMakin 2y ago
      There are plenty of breakdowns of what exactly the technical documents contain, including the stuff I just said. In great detail! Google ironically here is your friend. It confirms what SEO practitioners have been saying for years that Google has actively been discrediting with flat out falsehoods, such as they don’t use domain authority anywhere in their ranking (documentation describes fields named domainAuthority), they track clicks in great detail (which they have vigorously denied), and they use chrome usage data as a factor in their rankings. Hope that helps
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
tsimionescu 2y ago
Licenses don't work like that. Accidentally releasing something under a license doesn't mean it will forever carry that license.
- Mathnerd314 2y ago
  Regarding trade secrets, inadvertent or accidental disclosure means it is no longer a trade secret - no protection. And regarding copyright, there is Oracle vs. Google that copying APIs is fair use (Google's argument). So even if the copyright license grant in the leak is held to be invalid (the license states it is perpetual, if it is valid it does forever carry that license), it would be fair use anyway. I think the only IP protection is patents, Google has patents on various parts of the system so if you did actually want to build a Google clone by reverse-engineering their documentation you would run into trouble.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    I think serving the docs themselves is likely illegal, though. You don't actually have a right to distribute copies just because someone pushed a wrong button and they were made visible in a repo that has a top-level Apache 2 license. Sure, they can't stop people who received a copy from studying it and using or discussing the information in there. But I think they can almost certainly stop them from (legally) distributing that information to others.
    - winddude 2y ago
      Apache 2 is irrevocable, and you can redistribute it however you wish. I think it's safe to assume as soon as it was pushed public to the original google repo it's was covered under apache 2. that entire repo was distributed by google as Apache 2. So if you pull that commit, as far as I would be concerned everything in it is apache 2 since that's the license it's distributed with. We have no idea why that code was pushed, and it doesn't matter from a public perspective.
      - tsimionescu 2y ago

jart 2y ago

What am I looking at?

JohnMakin 2y ago
You're looking at a commit that contains all of the leaked files/documentation conveniently on the directory view on side of the github page.
- jart 2y ago
  That tells me literally nothing. This is all machine generated boilerplate code. This isn't executive emails or documents. Since when are comments written by nameless workers an authoritative newsworthy leak on corporate policy? It probably tells us something about what sort of things workers at Google have researched, e.g. csam, scams, racism. If I grep for SEO then I see some database fields for their pagespeed service that mentions accessibility audits and progressive web apps. Looks pretty consistent with what Google has always said publicly. Where's the specific code that's generating all the shock and outrage?
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    There are plenty of breakdowns of what exactly the technical documents contain, including the stuff I just said. In great detail! Google ironically here is your friend. It confirms what SEO practitioners have been saying for years that Google has actively been discrediting with flat out falsehoods, such as they don’t use domain authority anywhere in their ranking (documentation describes fields named domainAuthority), they track clicks in great detail (which they have vigorously denied), and they use chrome usage data as a factor in their rankings. Hope that helps
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

tsimionescu 2y ago

Licenses don't work like that. Accidentally releasing something under a license doesn't mean it will forever carry that license.

Mathnerd314 2y ago
Regarding trade secrets, inadvertent or accidental disclosure means it is no longer a trade secret - no protection. And regarding copyright, there is Oracle vs. Google that copying APIs is fair use (Google's argument). So even if the copyright license grant in the leak is held to be invalid (the license states it is perpetual, if it is valid it does forever carry that license), it would be fair use anyway. I think the only IP protection is patents, Google has patents on various parts of the system so if you did actually want to build a Google clone by reverse-engineering their documentation you would run into trouble.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  I think serving the docs themselves is likely illegal, though. You don't actually have a right to distribute copies just because someone pushed a wrong button and they were made visible in a repo that has a top-level Apache 2 license. Sure, they can't stop people who received a copy from studying it and using or discussing the information in there. But I think they can almost certainly stop them from (legally) distributing that information to others.
  - winddude 2y ago
    Apache 2 is irrevocable, and you can redistribute it however you wish. I think it's safe to assume as soon as it was pushed public to the original google repo it's was covered under apache 2. that entire repo was distributed by google as Apache 2. So if you pull that commit, as far as I would be concerned everything in it is apache 2 since that's the license it's distributed with. We have no idea why that code was pushed, and it doesn't matter from a public perspective.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago