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?
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.
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
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.
edit: as I express in a sibling comment this act is legally allowed of course, 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.
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)