3 ms·

Don't know if you are allowed to comment but: Is this an early sign of Google going back to its "not evil" roots or do I read too much into this? Edit: for co

Don't know if you are allowed to comment but: Is this an early sign of Google going back to its "not evil" roots or do I read too much into this? Edit: for context, I used to be a google fanboy and I still to sone degree recommend some of their products. I just got a bit fed up with the butchering of xmpp and possibly a few things I can't remember right now.

Merovius 10y ago
It's not a Google product. So no. (not that I'd agree with it not adhering to those roots currently. Just that this project has nothing to do with company policy)
- driusan 10y ago
  "This is the official list of people who can contribute (and typically have contributed) code to the Upspin repository. The AUTHORS file lists the copyright holders; this file lists people. For example, Google employees are listed here but not in AUTHORS, because Google holds the copyright."
  - Merovius 10y ago
    There is a difference between "a Google Product" and "Code to which Google holds copyright". Most importantly, the latter may include all code written by any Google Employee during their employment.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      There is a difference but it is only interesting once you get really close like in a lawsuit IMO. Google has copyright on the code and runs the infrastructure? Very much a Google product to me. Paid or not. Official or not.
      - 4ad 10y ago
        From the docs: > Terms of Service > The Upspin website (the “Website”) is hosted by Google. By using and/or visiting the Website, you consent to be bound by Google’s general Terms of Service and Google’s general Privacy Policy. Really a shame.
      - Merovius 10y ago
        But it makes a philosophical difference to the involvement of the company, of the people working on it and also a practical difference, because products and non-products have very different launch-requirements. You are perceiving Google as far more monolithic, than it really is; the difference between a product and a non-product is how different employees of the company interact. To the outside world, that might or might not have any meaning. But I feel for the original comment that I replied to, it does.

Merovius 10y ago

It's not a Google product. So no. (not that I'd agree with it not adhering to those roots currently. Just that this project has nothing to do with company policy)

driusan 10y ago
"This is the official list of people who can contribute (and typically have contributed) code to the Upspin repository. The AUTHORS file lists the copyright holders; this file lists people. For example, Google employees are listed here but not in AUTHORS, because Google holds the copyright."
- Merovius 10y ago
  There is a difference between "a Google Product" and "Code to which Google holds copyright". Most importantly, the latter may include all code written by any Google Employee during their employment.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    There is a difference but it is only interesting once you get really close like in a lawsuit IMO. Google has copyright on the code and runs the infrastructure? Very much a Google product to me. Paid or not. Official or not.
    - 4ad 10y ago
      From the docs: > Terms of Service > The Upspin website (the “Website”) is hosted by Google. By using and/or visiting the Website, you consent to be bound by Google’s general Terms of Service and Google’s general Privacy Policy. Really a shame.
    - Merovius 10y ago
      But it makes a philosophical difference to the involvement of the company, of the people working on it and also a practical difference, because products and non-products have very different launch-requirements. You are perceiving Google as far more monolithic, than it really is; the difference between a product and a non-product is how different employees of the company interact. To the outside world, that might or might not have any meaning. But I feel for the original comment that I replied to, it does.