there are very strict limitations to the implementation. The concrete class hierarchy has the final say. Thus you can't provide default implementations of hashCode, equals and toString.

Well... If you signed up for GMail, then why are you complaining? Google is not hiding their services in any way, if you want it you can sidestep Google.

NSA provides no services. You can't sue NSA and they pretend that it does not even exist!

Actually that information will help greatly in sorting the emails. Some people I'm in contact with routinely send me stupid email and happen to be business associates. I do not want to go through their cupcake bake-off blabber, to see that they have sent me estimates for projects.

In short - Google offers no more information than you can't already gather from other sources, concerning low volume demographics.
Consider that you are targeting a DnD players in Boulder(CO), going through Google is the least efficient tools that you could use to get personal details about your target group.
Targeting any group larger than that is pretty much useless and you can't practically gather any valuable personal information.

Yes... Which are male, single, under 30 interested in cars.
Please note, that private information is only the information that can personally identify you. Unless you happen to live in a country/city that has you are the only person fitting that profile, you have no basis to claim that your private information is sold.

Yet Google, in this case, is the postman.

I fail to see how "show an advertisement based on message content" is either inventive or non-obvious to an expert in the field.

And who said that they patented exactly that?

We are talking about using the source code in a wider sense than just compiling it and running it, aren't we? Or do you think that those little pieces of code that have no license are useful without creating a derivative work?

Has it been tested in court? In relation to no-explicit-license source code?

That reply is not a reply. I can sue all across Europe for such crap.

Oh.... Really? 19 years of experience and still have to wisen up. Treating other people's work like shit is exactly how others would treat you if you were bold enough to disclose your identity.
But hey... it's fun to hide in anonymity, right?

And thus we get to the crux of the matter - this code is being used and derivative works are being created. The code on GitHub is mostly used by other people in their own projects, not just to compile and run it.
The problem with source code is that compiling it is not allowed implicitly. Compiling source code is be like recording an audio version of the book.

Just because you put some code onto a publicly accessible code repository hosting site, does not imply a license. Otherwise uploading images to a public Flickr or other type of photo sharing site would amount to the same. That is , however, not the case. The implicit licenses are very limited in nature. No court will find that by sharing the code on GitHub or any other site, you released it into public domain. At the very least you will be eligible for monetary compensation and attribution.

Or - by using this code in a commercial environment you have to buy a license. License costs $5'000'000'000'000.