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