| > You grab a .dll file with a library you like, or a .so, and you commit it into git. Voila! This happens all the time. This would also violate Google's source code policies. So yes, the policies are remarkably consistent here. > No, you're incorrect about everything so far. I gave a correct explanation of how damages are calculated in this thread: Yes, and then you later gave an incorrect (overly limited one)one. > Profit is the DIFFERENCE in how much Google made with the AGPL code compared to if didn't have that code (so loss in profit from a bit less functionality in Gmail/Youtube/Ads, cost of licensing the functionality elsewhere, or cost of developing similar functionality) Note I said "potential". I agree that for an accidental temporary misuse, use the value wouldn't be astronomical. But for long term use it would be. As is evidenced by the current Oracle litigation. But note what this means: Google can't intentionally use any AGPL software in any of its products on purpose, because that opens them up to legitimately huge damages. So there's basically no legitimate business reason to import them. Accidental misuse is also potentially bad, though yes only hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars bad, not billions. But there's no upside. You can't use the software for legitimate business purposes. So banning it is completely rational, and banning it on the reasons stated is also completely rational, because there is only downside. |
I never said banning wasn't rational. I said Google SMEARING, AND LYING was a dick move, and an evil move.
P.S. To make a more consistent policy, Google should ban employees from having .dll or .so files on their company laptops, and make public page about how libraries are DANGEROUS. :)