Honestly, I think StoneCypher is spot-on with their comment on the thread.
"if you don't take this down, google will just remove the dns, and then you lose the ability to do this in a controlled way"
Remove the DNS or start filtering by IP address. In either case, the default is using a service in a way that isn't condoned by the service provider, and that's just begging for trouble at a time not convenient to the software maintainer in the future.
I disagree, nothing in the issues text says they are forbidden to use the server. It's not a problem for Google, it's a problem for distributions which don't change the default.
If Google removed the DNS entry they'd have to reconfigure all of their own servers, too. Not very probable.
"If Google removed the DNS entry they'd have to reconfigure all of their own servers, too. Not very probable."
That sounds suspiciously like you're saying "I'm going to keep telling everyone to use your service because it's too expensive for you to stop me or them."
I'm not sure it says anything about the other parties involved, but your willingness to knowingly externalize costs onto others says quite a bit about you
It's also almost certainly a bad assumption to make about Google, given that (a) they own the servers (so re-rigging them to just whitelist IPs is entirely possible) and (b) they are a search engine company (so finding the places where they used those servers to swap out the names is entirely possible ;) ).
"if you don't take this down, google will just remove the dns, and then you lose the ability to do this in a controlled way"
Remove the DNS or start filtering by IP address. In either case, the default is using a service in a way that isn't condoned by the service provider, and that's just begging for trouble at a time not convenient to the software maintainer in the future.