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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They confuse it with public domain, which means exactly that.
The "opens source" rebranding exercise and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
It depends on the license, but for many open source licenses, that probably violates attribution requirements.
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.
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?
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.
And changing the commit history to change the authors goes even further than modifying a manifest file.
Discussion (147 points, 4 days ago, 27 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49668181
Sounds like they need a good copyright lawyer.
It seems like an open and shut case, and I hear this Google company might have a few $$$ to pay for a settlement ...
They also have a lot more money than you do to spend on lawyers
We were blaming Bambu Lab, but apparently Google is no different.
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.