4 ms·

> Stealing software from a non-profit that you refuse to support, even though you depend on the work it does, is extremely not cool. If this truely was an inte

by Flammy 9y ago

> Stealing software from a non-profit that you refuse to support, even though you depend on the work it does, is extremely not cool. If this truely was an intern who did this, "you refuse to support" and "you depend on the work it does" are kind of stretches. Obviously stripping the crediting and copyright details is an incredibly poor decision, but not like this intern has any part of Google's decision to support Ruby Together or not.

movedx 9y ago
The intern represents Google in all regards and actions.
- Flammy 9y ago
  He just didn't know it... https://ca.linkedin.com/in/[redacted] https://ca.linkedin.com/in/[redacted] But really, I hope the dude doesn't get in too much trouble over this and can use it as a (moderately high profile) learning opportunity.
  - Waterluvian 9y ago
    Representing the company you work for, when doing your job at that company, is fundamental to the employee/employer relationship.
    - izacus 9y ago
      And the whole point of being an intern is to learn these things.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - ProAm 9y ago
    "Ignorance of the law excuses no man." - Seldon
  - rcfox 9y ago
    There's no need to dox the kid.
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      >There's no need to dox the kid. Linking to someone's linkedin page is not doxxing. That's information about himself he freely chose to make publicly available. It's linked from his github profile, which is two links away from the the Github issue that is the subject of this post. Doxxing would be revealing his home address, phone number, private email, etc.
  - cosinetau 9y ago
    Why are you providing a link to this person's LinkedIn? This IS NOT a place to provide material for a witchhunt.
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      >Why are you providing a link to this person's LinkedIn? This IS NOT a place to provide material for a witchhunt. If someone wanted to launch a witch hunt, it wouldn't take long for them to find his linkedin page on their own. The linkedin page is relevant because it provides verification that he is in fact a Google intern.
  - dang 9y ago
    Please don't bring in someone's personal details into a discussion like this. That's outside the kind of site we're trying for here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. We redacted the name from the comment above.
    - Gigablah 9y ago
      Could you change the title to something more neutral? E.g. "Gemstash project owner accuses Google intern of violating their MIT license"? From the discussion on the Github issues page it's starting to look like a mistake (last two posts): https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/google-cloud-gemserver/issues/36 https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/google-cloud-gemserve...
      - dang 9y ago
        Good point; we should have done that earlier. I've changed the title to that of the page and put quotes around it to indicate that it's disputed. (Submitted title was "Google intern violates the MIT license of Gemstash".) Edit: I also updated the URL from https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/google-cloud-gemserver/issues/36 https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/google-cloud-gemserve... to the post that indicates the issue was a mistake. Seems only fair.
geofft 9y ago
I am reading "you" as addressed to Google, not to the intern. The project is owned by Google, copyright is held by Google, the GitHub organization is for Google, etc. Sure, the intern is not personally morally culpable, but they were told what project to work on by a manager, no? And any open-source release was approved by a fairly sizable Google committee that is deeply aware of what open-source projects Google depends on and which ones they choose to support, isn't it? If this were on the intern's personal GitHub account on their own time (and Google were so kind as to allow the intern to do work on their own time and retain copyright), this would be a totally different matter, yes.

by Flammy 9y ago

movedx 9y ago

The intern represents Google in all regards and actions.

Flammy 9y ago
He just didn't know it... https://ca.linkedin.com/in/[redacted] https://ca.linkedin.com/in/[redacted] But really, I hope the dude doesn't get in too much trouble over this and can use it as a (moderately high profile) learning opportunity.
- Waterluvian 9y ago
  Representing the company you work for, when doing your job at that company, is fundamental to the employee/employer relationship.
  - izacus 9y ago
    And the whole point of being an intern is to learn these things.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- ProAm 9y ago
  "Ignorance of the law excuses no man." - Seldon
- rcfox 9y ago
  There's no need to dox the kid.
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    >There's no need to dox the kid. Linking to someone's linkedin page is not doxxing. That's information about himself he freely chose to make publicly available. It's linked from his github profile, which is two links away from the the Github issue that is the subject of this post. Doxxing would be revealing his home address, phone number, private email, etc.
- cosinetau 9y ago
  Why are you providing a link to this person's LinkedIn? This IS NOT a place to provide material for a witchhunt.
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    >Why are you providing a link to this person's LinkedIn? This IS NOT a place to provide material for a witchhunt. If someone wanted to launch a witch hunt, it wouldn't take long for them to find his linkedin page on their own. The linkedin page is relevant because it provides verification that he is in fact a Google intern.
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't bring in someone's personal details into a discussion like this. That's outside the kind of site we're trying for here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. We redacted the name from the comment above.
  - Gigablah 9y ago
    Could you change the title to something more neutral? E.g. "Gemstash project owner accuses Google intern of violating their MIT license"? From the discussion on the Github issues page it's starting to look like a mistake (last two posts): https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/google-cloud-gemserver/issues/36 https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/google-cloud-gemserve...
    - dang 9y ago
      Good point; we should have done that earlier. I've changed the title to that of the page and put quotes around it to indicate that it's disputed. (Submitted title was "Google intern violates the MIT license of Gemstash".) Edit: I also updated the URL from https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/google-cloud-gemserver/issues/36 https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/google-cloud-gemserve... to the post that indicates the issue was a mistake. Seems only fair.

geofft 9y ago

I am reading "you" as addressed to Google, not to the intern. The project is owned by Google, copyright is held by Google, the GitHub organization is for Google, etc. Sure, the intern is not personally morally culpable, but they were told what project to work on by a manager, no? And any open-source release was approved by a fairly sizable Google committee that is deeply aware of what open-source projects Google depends on and which ones they choose to support, isn't it? If this were on the intern's personal GitHub account on their own time (and Google were so kind as to allow the intern to do work on their own time and retain copyright), this would be a totally different matter, yes.