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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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"
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.