Derivative work and complete corresponding source has not been tested w.r.t. Google's monorepo (or similar situations), because under the terms of the gplv2/3, Google doesn't distribute any software.
There's an entire class of tooling to make sure that GPL-tainted software isn't distributed (https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restrict...), but because the class of software that Google distributes under the GPL is limited (can you think of any?), this is workable, and such things can be isolated.
That doesn't work if the definition of "distribution" is broadened significantly. Then the derivative work questions (which aren't as cut and dry as you claim) do suddenly matter a lot more.
> There's an entire class of tooling to make sure that GPL-tainted software isn't distributed
Amazing the lengths people go to in order to avoid sharing and treating others well! Imagine if they did the opposite: imagine if they just freely shared their source code.
I mean, there's some amount of code Google really doesn't want to share (it's not shared with me and I and I work there) for various reasons including security. So I imagine there would be downsides ( and not a whole lot of up, much of the useful stuff is already shared)
There's an entire class of tooling to make sure that GPL-tainted software isn't distributed (https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restrict...), but because the class of software that Google distributes under the GPL is limited (can you think of any?), this is workable, and such things can be isolated.
That doesn't work if the definition of "distribution" is broadened significantly. Then the derivative work questions (which aren't as cut and dry as you claim) do suddenly matter a lot more.