91–100 of 112 posts
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It is a form of very explicit and literal communication. Unfortunately you sent an unambiguous message to the world inviting them to do this.
(Disclaimer that I briefly worked at Google years ago)
EDIT: Well OP did not give them permission to alter the license. Sorry this happened to you. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35791737
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems overly pessimistic to me. Sure you're not going to use this as a consumer in place of a local disk, nor are you going to use this as part of your web app. But there are lots of situations in reporting, batch/cron jobs, data processing, and general file administration where it's incredibly easier to use the file system interface than to use an HTTP API via a cloud storage library. Which FUSE is a godsend fo…
In the old days, we had a system called NFS (Network File System) where, yes, you may decide to use only remote disks. There were several advantages apart from lowering the cost of disks, mainly that you could centrally manage boot images for a fleet of machines. Then we got the web and everyone seemed to assume you could do the same thing over the internet. I agree with you, I would prefer a local disk to one with 1…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everything is a webserver. There's a lot of software out there that wouldn't expect files to exist anywhere else besides on disk, and it's not worth fetching them all from cloud storage before you begin working on the data. It's easier just to GCSFuse a bucket to a VM and let the user do what they will. Works great for ad-hoc analysis of poorly or unstructured data.
And for your use case, the latency is not a concern? I suppose that would be true if you were mostly dealing with really big files and only cared about reading large contiguous chunks of them, but I would consider this a fairly niche application. In my use case, taking ~1 second each time to `ls` a directory, `stat` a file, or `lseek` within a file was simply unacceptable. This was on a cloud VM, so the latency would…
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?
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder the same, but I also wonder what the actual use case is for the Drive app on Linux. For me, Drive is mostly for syncing office docs (namely MS-office docs), PDFs and images among teams. That type of work doesn’t lend itself well to a Linux env anyway. And for programming-heavy sync tasks, a user will more likely use a remote Git repo for code and GCS for data. Does google even use MS office internally?
> Does google even use MS office internally That'd be weird, considering they have their own suite of office tools. Kind of like if Microsoft would be using Google Cloud rather than Azure internally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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.
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
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?
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…
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.
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
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)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Otherwise if you're upset they otherwise used code you released under a permissive license that's a personal problem. You signaled to the world that you'd relax your copyright under a permissive license and don't like the results? This is like gifting something and being mad about how the gift was used.
As others have pointed out you don't seem to grasp why licenses exist in the first place? No org or individual in general wants to play guessing games and risk liability. It's entirely on you to signal how you want your work to be used.