3 ms·

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. Whi

by FabCH 18d 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.

bananaflag 18d ago
They confuse it with public domain, which means exactly that.
- PalmPilotProMax 18d ago
  The "opens source" rebranding exercise and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
bitpush 18d 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 18d 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 18d ago
    And changing the commit history to change the authors goes even further than modifying a manifest file.
thayne 18d ago
It depends on the license, but for many open source licenses, that probably violates attribution requirements.
- FabCH 18d 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.

by FabCH 18d ago

bananaflag 18d ago

They confuse it with public domain, which means exactly that.

PalmPilotProMax 18d ago
The "opens source" rebranding exercise and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

bitpush 18d 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 18d 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 18d ago
  And changing the commit history to change the authors goes even further than modifying a manifest file.

thayne 18d ago

It depends on the license, but for many open source licenses, that probably violates attribution requirements.

FabCH 18d 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.