[SamuelAdams]

Your repository seems to have both an Apache and MIT license. What license are you distributing your code under?

Edit: I see you said it’s dual licensed. From the look of it both allow Google or any other company to copy and reuse code, so what are you upset about?

[warent]

I don't mean to be rude but yeah, this is exactly what AGPL was intended to combat. It's a lesson learned for these developers, and Google did nothing wrong or even unethical imo.

A lot of people treat licensing emotionally (e.g. WTFPL, or picking licenses that feel good, or that we saw in another project), however business people are very logical and will unfortunately exploit this.

The irony is that Google probably would not have done this if the codebase just omitted a license entirely. When I worked there, they wouldn't allow OSS with no license.

[judge2020]

> The irony is that Google probably would not have done this if the codebase just omitted a license entirely. When I worked there, they wouldn't allow OSS with no license.

This is because a license is the only way to legally use code. Code being publicly accessible doesn't mean it's free-as-in-freedom to use.

[soraminazuki]

> The irony is that Google probably would not have done this if the codebase just omitted a license entirely.

Yes they would. Google's code appears not to include attribution to the OP. So either Google authored the code or violated the license. One would hope that it's former.

[warent]

You're right their Apache licenses are different:

https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs/blob/master/LICENSE-APACHE

https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse-csi-driver/b...

OP should submit a PR to correct this. IANAL but pretty sure they're supposed to use the original copy including copyright notice "Copyright 2020 Ofek Lev"

Might be stolen code until they fix this

[ofek]

Either, the choice is up to you.

edit: as I express in a sibling comment this act is legally allowed of course, but is bad practice

[MuffinFlavored]

> but is bad practice

Says who/why?

"It's mean/I don't get a callout/the credit I deserve" is "bad practice"?

Why aren't you honored that your product was good enough for Google to absorb and build off of? I'd be super proud.

[ericpruitt]

I have to agree. I use non-copyleft licenses because I don't expect people using the code to give me anything in return. Removing your the header and attribution is wrong, but not collaborating? As was said in other comments, if that's what you want, dictate it in your license because there are plenty of -- and dare I so most -- people that use the MIT license that don't care.

[Matl]

This is why free software and open source aren't the same. Free software is about this kind of fairness, among others. The simplicity of open source does have its downsides.

[aprdm]

Why it is bad practice ... ?

[prpl]

unless there are legal definitions to “bad” it’s well within their rights you’ve granted them.

You can’t have a license that says one thing and then rely on implicit community norms to expect something to happen. (For one, you’re assuming the person is even aware of the community norms)