[9dev]

If you read the original publication on this[1], they mention there’s a stray commit publishing the internal variant of the SDK intended for the actual Google warehouse database. So the code bases probably live close enough together for someone to accidentally pass the wrong folder name or something.

This has been fixed, but the commit and all it’s changes are out there—and tragically, published alongside a copy of the Apache 2.0 license (intended for the document warehouse API SDK), which officially sanctioned freely copying and using the code. So there is really nothing Google can do about it.

[1] https://ipullrank.com/google-algo-leak

[lambdaxyzw]

>published alongside a copy of the Apache 2.0 license (intended for the document warehouse API SDK), which officially sanctioned freely copying and using the code. So there is really nothing Google can do about it.

This sounds good to us, tech nerds, but I'm pretty sure law doesn't work like this.

At minimum, even if (clearly accidentally) putting a code next to a open source license world be legally binding, the person doing the leaking was not the intellectual property owner. Google will just - correctly - say, that the person that leaked the code had no right to do so, especially under free license.

[natpalmer1776]

To continue this train of thought, what is stopping a company from saying "This team did not ask for permission before they published XYZ under this license" and just rescinding access to a widely used library?

At what point can you no longer say "oopsie" ?

[bqmjjx0kac]

The law is JIT. We don't need an answer now, just ask a judge when it happens.

[natpalmer1776]

The law is JIT is honestly the best computer-nerd analogy for legal precedent I've ever heard.