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.
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.
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.
15 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 37.6 ms ] threadWhich is the one thing you absolutely cannot do.
if there was a comment that said // TODO(username) and google removed all comments, is that violating any license?
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.
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.
It seems like an open and shut case, and I hear this Google company might have a few $$$ to pay for a settlement ...