4 ms·

> (This is not an official Google product) It appears that Google's policy is that all open source personal projects be hosted under its GitHub account. Thus,

by lambda 9y ago

> (This is not an official Google product) It appears that Google's policy is that all open source personal projects be hosted under its GitHub account. Thus, I think "Google open sources" is a bit misleading; that implies that it's an official project being used by Google, whereas this just looks like a personal project being hosted by Google due to their requirements.

mpartel 9y ago
I don't think so. They've released their internal guidelines here: https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ In this case, the person seems to have opted for the easier "go/releasing" route where Google retains the copyright. But that doesn't seem to strictly mandate using GitHub either.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  I bet releasing a project with /google/ in it is a pretty good way to make sure it hits the top of HN though, so it's probably an appealing choice. ;)
callmekatootie 9y ago
I am also confused with that statement because the files appear to have Google Copyright in them. Example https://github.com/google/bottery/blob/master/js/bots.js https://github.com/google/bottery/blob/master/js/bots.js So its not official Google Product yet has Google Copyright. Not sure how that works.
- teamhappy 9y ago
  > Not sure how that works. I guess she wrote it at work.
- detaro 9y ago
  Google doesn't support it in any way (=not a product), it's just something the author made during her time at Google internally (=it has Google copyright) that's now open-sourced. https://twitter.com/GalaxyKate/status/925159463807361024 https://twitter.com/GalaxyKate/status/925159463807361024
- breakingcups 9y ago
  A Googler once told me that any code he writes during his employment with Google belongs to Google copyright-wise. If they want to open source anything they have to ask Google for permission. It doesn't have to be hosted under the Google GitHub organization though (take Camlistore[1] as an example, although their primary repository is still hosted at googlesource.com). This also means that if you want to contribute code to an open source project started by a Googler you will have to sign the Google CLA. 1: https://camlistore.org/ https://camlistore.org/
  - maxton 9y ago
    I don't think that's true for every project, as I have contributed to an open-source project[1] started by a Googler, and never had to sign a CLA, nor is the project hosted under the Google Github org. 1: https://github.com/benvanik/xenia https://github.com/benvanik/xenia
- cflewis 9y ago
  See my reply above. TL;DR: Google's employment agreement means Google owns the copyright, which is what you see here. That doesn't mean we are endorsing the repo or making any claims to its importance.
mseebach 9y ago
There's a (large) middle ground between "personal project" and "official product". It not hard to imagine a project being build as a proof of concept as part of someones regular job, yet not making it to "product", much less "official" status (and never intended to), but still open sourced because it might benefit someone else.
sctb 9y ago
Yes, we've updated the title “Google open sources Bottery – bot-making language/platform” to that of the project. This is one reason we ask submitters not to editorialized titles: it's all too easy to mislead.
cflewis 9y ago
Hey ho. I'm Chris, I'm on Google's Open Source Team. One of the replies was right to point out this URL here: https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ The key passage is this: > As part of your employment agreement, Google most likely owns intellectual property (IP) you create while at the company. Because Google’s business interests are so wide and varied, this likely applies to any personal project you have. We have two systems for Googlers to release code. We want Googlers to open source stuff. It makes everyone happier. So we have one method, which is really simple and pretty fast-track, usually taking about a week. That's what you see here: Google retains the copyright, we release it under Apache 2 to a Google-owned GitHub organization. The repo owners can then patch their repository without further approval steps (Google owns the copyright on that new work too), accept patches (as long as the submitter has signed the CLA) and we trust owners to act with common sense (e.g. don't change the license :) ). If the Googler leaves the company, they are free to fork the repository. The other method is IARC as detailed in the URL, where a committee has to approve that the work is something that Google is OK with handing the copyright over to. I think the most common example is Googlers who write games, but of course people have all sorts of reasons for why they want to hold onto the copyright. We recognize the challenge that comes with releasing repositories under the Google GitHub organization, but for those repositories to be not official. Headlines like "Google open sources [x]" is legally true but not spiritually so: the original author is the person who really open sourced and owns it, and Google is not really putting its institutional brand behind it. We have to balance that with the fact that we really need to know where all our repositories are, and be able to administer them, such as enabling CLA checks and forcing 2FA. The GitHub setup right now means that means putting repos under orgs we control. We've spoken before about having a separate org that the non-official repos sit under, but this has always presented its own difficulties: if a project takes off, when does it "graduate" to the main org? What breaks if that happens? (Go code would for sure) What if the author feels they should graduate but we don't? Would projects in the non-official org not get the attention they deserve? etc. etc. Given that it's not a clear win, we've not opted to do that. That said, I feel like I've seen the "Google releases [x]" headline on Hacker News more of late, and I am not sure if that's because submitters are excited and editorializing, or if there's genuine confusion. I'd love to hear any thoughts people have on that.
- 9y ago

by lambda 9y ago

mpartel 9y ago

I don't think so. They've released their internal guidelines here: https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ In this case, the person seems to have opted for the easier "go/releasing" route where Google retains the copyright. But that doesn't seem to strictly mandate using GitHub either.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
I bet releasing a project with /google/ in it is a pretty good way to make sure it hits the top of HN though, so it's probably an appealing choice. ;)

callmekatootie 9y ago

I am also confused with that statement because the files appear to have Google Copyright in them. Example https://github.com/google/bottery/blob/master/js/bots.js https://github.com/google/bottery/blob/master/js/bots.js So its not official Google Product yet has Google Copyright. Not sure how that works.

teamhappy 9y ago
> Not sure how that works. I guess she wrote it at work.
detaro 9y ago
Google doesn't support it in any way (=not a product), it's just something the author made during her time at Google internally (=it has Google copyright) that's now open-sourced. https://twitter.com/GalaxyKate/status/925159463807361024 https://twitter.com/GalaxyKate/status/925159463807361024
breakingcups 9y ago
A Googler once told me that any code he writes during his employment with Google belongs to Google copyright-wise. If they want to open source anything they have to ask Google for permission. It doesn't have to be hosted under the Google GitHub organization though (take Camlistore[1] as an example, although their primary repository is still hosted at googlesource.com). This also means that if you want to contribute code to an open source project started by a Googler you will have to sign the Google CLA. 1: https://camlistore.org/ https://camlistore.org/
- maxton 9y ago
  I don't think that's true for every project, as I have contributed to an open-source project[1] started by a Googler, and never had to sign a CLA, nor is the project hosted under the Google Github org. 1: https://github.com/benvanik/xenia https://github.com/benvanik/xenia
cflewis 9y ago
See my reply above. TL;DR: Google's employment agreement means Google owns the copyright, which is what you see here. That doesn't mean we are endorsing the repo or making any claims to its importance.

mseebach 9y ago

There's a (large) middle ground between "personal project" and "official product". It not hard to imagine a project being build as a proof of concept as part of someones regular job, yet not making it to "product", much less "official" status (and never intended to), but still open sourced because it might benefit someone else.

sctb 9y ago

Yes, we've updated the title “Google open sources Bottery – bot-making language/platform” to that of the project. This is one reason we ask submitters not to editorialized titles: it's all too easy to mislead.

cflewis 9y ago

Hey ho. I'm Chris, I'm on Google's Open Source Team. One of the replies was right to point out this URL here: https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ The key passage is this: > As part of your employment agreement, Google most likely owns intellectual property (IP) you create while at the company. Because Google’s business interests are so wide and varied, this likely applies to any personal project you have. We have two systems for Googlers to release code. We want Googlers to open source stuff. It makes everyone happier. So we have one method, which is really simple and pretty fast-track, usually taking about a week. That's what you see here: Google retains the copyright, we release it under Apache 2 to a Google-owned GitHub organization. The repo owners can then patch their repository without further approval steps (Google owns the copyright on that new work too), accept patches (as long as the submitter has signed the CLA) and we trust owners to act with common sense (e.g. don't change the license :) ). If the Googler leaves the company, they are free to fork the repository. The other method is IARC as detailed in the URL, where a committee has to approve that the work is something that Google is OK with handing the copyright over to. I think the most common example is Googlers who write games, but of course people have all sorts of reasons for why they want to hold onto the copyright. We recognize the challenge that comes with releasing repositories under the Google GitHub organization, but for those repositories to be not official. Headlines like "Google open sources [x]" is legally true but not spiritually so: the original author is the person who really open sourced and owns it, and Google is not really putting its institutional brand behind it. We have to balance that with the fact that we really need to know where all our repositories are, and be able to administer them, such as enabling CLA checks and forcing 2FA. The GitHub setup right now means that means putting repos under orgs we control. We've spoken before about having a separate org that the non-official repos sit under, but this has always presented its own difficulties: if a project takes off, when does it "graduate" to the main org? What breaks if that happens? (Go code would for sure) What if the author feels they should graduate but we don't? Would projects in the non-official org not get the attention they deserve? etc. etc. Given that it's not a clear win, we've not opted to do that. That said, I feel like I've seen the "Google releases [x]" headline on Hacker News more of late, and I am not sure if that's because submitters are excited and editorializing, or if there's genuine confusion. I'd love to hear any thoughts people have on that.

9y ago