5 ms·

Not Invented Here (tm) seems like a large part of the cultural problem with being better open source contributors. It's great they open source a lot of their s

by ethbro 9y ago

Not Invented Here (tm) seems like a large part of the cultural problem with being better open source contributors. It's great they open source a lot of their stuff, but just because you're big enough as a company to rewrite {component of build chain} for yourselves... doesn't mean you should. Caveat: I know parts of Google are awesome with contributions and using standards.

iaml 9y ago
Biggest problem I think is googlers can't use code if it's licensed under AGPL. edit: GPL -> AGPL
- plantain 9y ago
  Not true. Ex-googler.
- skj 9y ago
  The license we (I am an engineer at Google) cannot use is the AGPL.
- mmirate 9y ago
  Well of course. The popularity of web-based SaaS is in no small part due to the fact that having AGPL dependencies is a much more avoidable situation than having GPL dependencies. (cf LLVM) If only the AGPL had been invented along with the GPL, we wouldn't have this problem.
jacksmith21006 9y ago
Not invented here? Seems like the exact opposite at Google and it surprises me all the time. Purchased a Google WiFi for example and the license agreement is pages long of using open source software. https://support.google.com/wifi/answer/7359345?hl=en https://support.google.com/wifi/answer/7359345?hl=en Google uses the Linux kernel for everything. From Google Home to Chromecast to their cloud and Android and ChromeOS. Only now working on their own kernel, Zircon but suspect just experimentation. Google tends to use off the shelve if something exist to use. They tend to focus on new things. Another great example is using Intel processors but did the TPUs as nothing available to meet their needs. Then we get speech to text using a NN at 16k samples a second at a reasonable cost.
- jahvo 9y ago
  From my experience: they fork every lib and they don't contribute back. Just look at the list of libs that are built into Chrome.
  - jacksmith21006 9y ago
    Well if does not fit their needs makes sense to fork. But Google has the money to have an attitude to re-create the wheel and that does not appear their approach.

by ethbro 9y ago

iaml 9y ago

Biggest problem I think is googlers can't use code if it's licensed under AGPL. edit: GPL -> AGPL

plantain 9y ago
Not true. Ex-googler.
skj 9y ago
The license we (I am an engineer at Google) cannot use is the AGPL.
mmirate 9y ago
Well of course. The popularity of web-based SaaS is in no small part due to the fact that having AGPL dependencies is a much more avoidable situation than having GPL dependencies. (cf LLVM) If only the AGPL had been invented along with the GPL, we wouldn't have this problem.

jacksmith21006 9y ago

Not invented here? Seems like the exact opposite at Google and it surprises me all the time. Purchased a Google WiFi for example and the license agreement is pages long of using open source software. https://support.google.com/wifi/answer/7359345?hl=en https://support.google.com/wifi/answer/7359345?hl=en Google uses the Linux kernel for everything. From Google Home to Chromecast to their cloud and Android and ChromeOS. Only now working on their own kernel, Zircon but suspect just experimentation. Google tends to use off the shelve if something exist to use. They tend to focus on new things. Another great example is using Intel processors but did the TPUs as nothing available to meet their needs. Then we get speech to text using a NN at 16k samples a second at a reasonable cost.

jahvo 9y ago
From my experience: they fork every lib and they don't contribute back. Just look at the list of libs that are built into Chrome.
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Well if does not fit their needs makes sense to fork. But Google has the money to have an attitude to re-create the wheel and that does not appear their approach.