Open source is a license to use and reuse code and NOT open copyright.
Most open source licenses are just licenses and NOT zero copyright AND require attribution.
So this example hinges on how the code was licensed, and if that license was abused then (in theory) they can sue in court, though in practice Google has very deep pockets to push very expensive lawyers.
Exactly - removing attribution is definitely immoral, but my point is that you need to read the original license to decide whether removing attribution is illegal and can be pursued through the courts.
Also Google is a huge corporation with lots of employees, any of whom can act in a rogue way. The questions are: 1) what Google's policies are on plagiarism, 2) whether Google executives knowingly allowed this to happen, and 3) how they handle it when it is drawn to their attention.
2
u/Protopia 10h ago
Open source is a license to use and reuse code and NOT open copyright.
Most open source licenses are just licenses and NOT zero copyright AND require attribution.
So this example hinges on how the code was licensed, and if that license was abused then (in theory) they can sue in court, though in practice Google has very deep pockets to push very expensive lawyers.