Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Cloud Storage FUSE

cloud.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 112 posts

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#81

Post by ofek »

mox1 wrote: post #79
ofek wrote: post #77

I do appreciate that Google is now officially supporting gcsfuse because it genuinely is a great project. However, their Kubernetes CSI driver seems to have in large part copied code from the one I and a co-maintainer have been working on for years: - https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse-csi-driver - https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs Here is the initial commit: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse…

You licensed the code as MIT - https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs/blob/master/LICENSE-MIT Are you saying you have an issue with them copying your MIT licensed code?

Yes, copying the code without following up to actually collaborate or even forking to show attribution I think is bad practice for such a large organization, or any entity for that matter.

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#82

Post by scoobydoobydrew »

rippercushions wrote: post #2

Is this the same gcsfuse that's been around for years, only now with official Google support? https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcsfuse

Looking at change descriptions, looks like underlying changes were made to get to this like now using GO client library. I would expect a more stable product, and better performance which looks like the performance benchmarks located under docs has been updated as well. Happy to finally see Google standing behind this, and the official CSI driver is really cool to see.

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#83

Post by scoobydoobydrew »

jefftk wrote: post #5

Cloud Storage FUSE does not support overwriting in the middle of a file. Only sequential writes are supported. This seems like a big limitation?

This works, there is nothing stopping it, but just like all cloud object storage it will trigger a complete re-write of the object when saved.

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#84

Post by tantalor »

ofek wrote: post #81
mox1 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You licensed the code as MIT - https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs/blob/master/LICENSE-MIT Are you saying you have an issue with them copying your MIT licensed code?

Yes, copying the code without following up to actually collaborate or even forking to show attribution I think is bad practice for such a large organization, or any entity for that matter.

If that's what you want, then update your license to require that.

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#85

Post by ofek »

tantalor wrote: post #84
ofek wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, copying the code without following up to actually collaborate or even forking to show attribution I think is bad practice for such a large organization, or any entity for that matter.

If that's what you want, then update your license to require that.

Are you of the opinion that because a behavior is legal that necessarily makes it right in all cases? If so, I suppose that is where I disagree.

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#86

Post by soraminazuki »

mox1 wrote: post #79
ofek wrote: post #77

I do appreciate that Google is now officially supporting gcsfuse because it genuinely is a great project. However, their Kubernetes CSI driver seems to have in large part copied code from the one I and a co-maintainer have been working on for years: - https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse-csi-driver - https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs Here is the initial commit: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse…

You licensed the code as MIT - https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs/blob/master/LICENSE-MIT Are you saying you have an issue with them copying your MIT licensed code?

If the GP is right, Google is violating the terms of the license. A quick search of the code reveals that Google's code doesn't include copyright headers with attribution to the GP. This could be stolen code.

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#87

Post by FooBarWidget »

oittaa wrote: post #54
netheril96 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most wrong part of that previous team is to store private keys unencrypted in the cloud, not the performance part.

My understanding is that everything is encrypted by default in GCP. Though you need to manually configure encryption keys if you want to prevent Google ever having access to your data.

This I don't understand. Even if you configure KMS, those are still keys stored on Google infra.

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#88

Post by MuffinFlavored »

ofek wrote: post #80
SamuelAdams wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

> 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.

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#89

Post by Matl »

ofek wrote: post #80
SamuelAdams wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

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.

Re: Google Cloud Storage FUSE

#90

Post by warent »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #78
ofek wrote: post #77

I do appreciate that Google is now officially supporting gcsfuse because it genuinely is a great project. However, their Kubernetes CSI driver seems to have in large part copied code from the one I and a co-maintainer have been working on for years: - https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse-csi-driver - https://github.com/ofek/csi-gcs Here is the initial commit: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcs-fuse…

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?

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.

Post reply on HN