3 ms·

This is actually a big can of worms, what with it having so much to do with state, federal and international law and treaty (wipo, amongst others). It is often

by cdibona 16y ago

This is actually a big can of worms, what with it having so much to do with state, federal and international law and treaty (wipo, amongst others). It is often unfair. All I can act on from this fairness perspective is Google's interactions with Open Source, making it as easy as possible to release code under open source licenses, which I think we're doing a good job of.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
cookiecaper 16y ago
Right, as you stated in your first post, it's easy to open-source something as long as you let Google have the copyright. Well, that's not always a good option. We have a prominent example in the Sun/Oracle thing right now. A copyright owner can transfer or disavow its copyright. Even if state, federal, and international law allows you to steal your employees' work, you shouldn't do it. If something that should belong to employees belongs to Google due to an incongruency or other bad thing in the law and this becomes an issue in a court, Google can simply say, "We had nothing to do with this, we didn't pay for it, our facilities were not used in its creation, and therefore we transfer our copyright to employee X, who is the primary author." I can see how obtaining a pre-emptive declaration and/or copyright assignment can be beneficial, but I definitely don't think there's any need to act like it's a requirement and that an employee needs Google's permission to live as a free person and do things he wants that are entirely separate from Google, its facilities, and its businesses.
bugsy 16y ago
"what with it having so much to do with state, federal and international law and treaty" Would love to see specific citations showing that Google has no choice but to claim ownership of all its employee's projects during their own free time at home or elsewhere not at work. I thought slavery was banned in most countries, it's amazing to now hear that it is required under international treaty. Greatly looking forward to those specific citations of how specifically Google has no choice in this because of "state, federal and international law and treaty".
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - bugsy 16y ago
    He's gone beyond saying it is a voluntary contract. He said the contract terms being discussed are required under state, federal and international law. Thanks for the downvote!
    - lionhearted 16y ago
      For the ridiculous slavery analogy. You've got a top Google legal person here explaining his thought process clearly and in honest, not-just-PC terms, and you're waving your arms around. I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but it's bad for discussion. Anyway, I deleted my comment since I didn't want to get into an argument here, it's not that important to me. I don't even 100% disagree with you, but clean up the tone a little bit and less handwaving? That kind of thing is what makes people want to brush off criticism instead of responding, which is really bad for discussion. I think it's really cool that a person on the Google legal team is explaining their thinking here reasonably and clearly.
      - cookiecaper 16y ago
        I don't think cdibona is a lawyer or on Google Legal. Last I knew he was "director of open-source operations" or something like that. He is a developer I think. I also think he had some involvement with SourceForge back in the day but am not sure.
        BarkMore 16y ago
        Chris is the Open Source Programs Manager at Google. He handles open source matters and policies for Google, among other tasks. He is not a developer.

by cdibona 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

cookiecaper 16y ago

Right, as you stated in your first post, it's easy to open-source something as long as you let Google have the copyright. Well, that's not always a good option. We have a prominent example in the Sun/Oracle thing right now. A copyright owner can transfer or disavow its copyright. Even if state, federal, and international law allows you to steal your employees' work, you shouldn't do it. If something that should belong to employees belongs to Google due to an incongruency or other bad thing in the law and this becomes an issue in a court, Google can simply say, "We had nothing to do with this, we didn't pay for it, our facilities were not used in its creation, and therefore we transfer our copyright to employee X, who is the primary author." I can see how obtaining a pre-emptive declaration and/or copyright assignment can be beneficial, but I definitely don't think there's any need to act like it's a requirement and that an employee needs Google's permission to live as a free person and do things he wants that are entirely separate from Google, its facilities, and its businesses.

bugsy 16y ago

"what with it having so much to do with state, federal and international law and treaty" Would love to see specific citations showing that Google has no choice but to claim ownership of all its employee's projects during their own free time at home or elsewhere not at work. I thought slavery was banned in most countries, it's amazing to now hear that it is required under international treaty. Greatly looking forward to those specific citations of how specifically Google has no choice in this because of "state, federal and international law and treaty".

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- bugsy 16y ago
  He's gone beyond saying it is a voluntary contract. He said the contract terms being discussed are required under state, federal and international law. Thanks for the downvote!
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    For the ridiculous slavery analogy. You've got a top Google legal person here explaining his thought process clearly and in honest, not-just-PC terms, and you're waving your arms around. I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but it's bad for discussion. Anyway, I deleted my comment since I didn't want to get into an argument here, it's not that important to me. I don't even 100% disagree with you, but clean up the tone a little bit and less handwaving? That kind of thing is what makes people want to brush off criticism instead of responding, which is really bad for discussion. I think it's really cool that a person on the Google legal team is explaining their thinking here reasonably and clearly.
    - cookiecaper 16y ago
      I don't think cdibona is a lawyer or on Google Legal. Last I knew he was "director of open-source operations" or something like that. He is a developer I think. I also think he had some involvement with SourceForge back in the day but am not sure.
      - BarkMore 16y ago
        Chris is the Open Source Programs Manager at Google. He handles open source matters and policies for Google, among other tasks. He is not a developer.