Just because something is legal, doesn't mean that it isn't utterly immoral.

The Google guy should be ashamed of himself, apologize, and try to remedy the injustice he perpetrated - get Oz a job, and/or credit him in their work.

> Google guy should be ashamed

Should be but is not, that's the problem. He's probably happy about a pay-raise.

The problem is that Google has the monopoly. No use trying to boycott a monopoly.

The only remedy is anti-monopoly and related legislation. And for that we need to elect (into power) politicians that are willing to enact such legislation.

That's a lot of projection with very little fact.

If anything I'm ashamed of the sheer volume of personal time, money, and effort I put into helping build and enable community, only for accusations like this to lead people to believe all kind of false things about me to the extent that they'll write me horrifying emails, and speculate on Ycombinator about my motives!

While I'm not a perfect person, indeed, I am far from it, I did not perpetrate any injustice here, and I resent the accusation.

The remedy is Google gives the guy a job or some damn payment. "They don't have to" - well no shit, we don't have to be nice to each other, yet most of us are. Why can't Google be nice to people?

They don't have to be nice to people, but it would be better if they (still) were not evil.

Because Google is a corporation, not a person. Even if Google decides to be "nice" in this case, this will be for purely selfish reasons (they decide good PR they get from paying this guy is worth more than whatever they pay). Expecting corporations to behave like people is a sure way to get disappointed.

Corporations are made up of people, and people can influence the actions of the corporation, if they try.

Yeah good luck with that. The founding principal and mission of a corporation is to make money at all costs. Being "Good" will always come second to making money, the individuals who make it up are powerless to stop it.

Do you have a source for this? As far as I know the purpose of corporations is to shield owners from losses and not a whole lot beyond that.

The best way to shield owners is to not form a business in the first place.

That's even worse. You, the individual, will just have all the liabilities.

I mean not go into any business

Unclear why you were downvoted, it’s in the name: Limited Liability Company, PLC, Ltd etc.

I've effected positive change in the companies I've worked with in the past, so I guess I know firsthand of anecdotal counter-arguments.

It doesn't matter what corporations are made of, they are their own different thing operating in a different context and according to other rules.

It doesn't matter if it's made of people or ants.

They're made out of people subservient to the owners, whether that's a rich dude or a bunch of shareholders largely shielded from the day to day operations and who just want their stocks to go up a little more. Google is THE poster child of a company whose employees rebelled, even unionized, but who still don't really have much power.

It's a huge advertising company trying to make more money, not a scrappy search tech startup in a garage...

Then perhaps a corporation should not legally be considered as a person, at any level of law.

Corporations can't be nice. They exist to multiply capital of the investors. Among those investors there is a big one - 401ks, index funds and other assets of small people managed by big firms. As an individual investor, do you want your 401k to grow? If you do, you're among the many who force Google to promote efficient nihilists who bring money. If you don't, why haven't you invested your savings in a nonprofit fund helping the homeless?

B Corps exist, ethical investment exists. Corporations are made of people or can be mean or nice. This argument is silly.

How much % of your savings is invested into those B corps?

The legal system isn't the only means to a "resolution".

Public shaming can work pretty well too, sometimes.

I really do not see what google did wrong here. There should be no flag-planting in the open source community. The fact that one person develops an idea does not mean that nobody else has a right to develop their own version. In this case the authors has even deleted all his repositories due to mental stress. It makes even more sense for Google to develop their own version so that they can be in the control of their project.

Open source is unsustainable if we act like this. A 100k grant costs a fraction of the latest leetcode wanker member of the blind church of tc. Add to it a couple of seniors to mentor the dude a couple afternoons a Week and you’re steering the project without too many problems at lower cost.

“Give back to the community” used to be something I admired in the American culture as an European, but I guess most exchanged it for a L6 promo

The wrong things is that they actually spent time talking to Oz.

It wasn’t just a random repository they came across.

Anyway this is why I GPL everything. At least it ensures that the changes to it remain free.

I completely disagree.

Just because it is not illegal does not mean you want your employees acting this way. Google should at a minimum have in place a program to help these folks start a small company for the purposes of acquiring, with the implied benefit for the employee that it shows their leadership capabilities. Ripping off a disabled veteran should reflect badly on Google and therefore disciplinary actions can be taken.

The fact that it isn't a thing at Google speaks volumes.