6 ms·

I would wager that a vast majority of them are personal projects. If you work at Google and want to do some open source project on the side, the code is owned b

by ipsum2 7y ago

I would wager that a vast majority of them are personal projects. If you work at Google and want to do some open source project on the side, the code is owned by Google and is under Github.com/google. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15592968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15592968

9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
Not necessarily: here's Chris DiBona explaining how it works. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15594045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15594045
zamadatix 7y ago
Here I am just wishing my company would even allow me to post the source of a project I've worked on with any license and apparently Google isn't worth praise for hosting all such projects with an Apache license by default and a review process if you'd like to try to keep copyright. https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  If you live in CA, you're good to do it: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-96.html https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-96.html as long as you do it on your time, using your own resources, and do not compete with your workplace. The fact that google (or other employers) do not go out of their way to tell you this is, of course, understandable.
  - jefftk 7y ago
    > do not compete with your workplace Google does enough different things that this is often unclear. The IARC program lets you get a clear opinion from the company on whether they consider your work to be fully separate.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    For any large company this effectively means that almost all of your side projects can be construed as falling afoul of this law.
  - kccqzy 7y ago
    No, the point is Google goes beyond the typical organization in that it provides 20% time which can, if you desire, be used to work on personal projects even with Google equipment. That's better than using after-work hours and your own resources.
    - dmitrygr 7y ago
      20% time hasn't existed in 8 years at least (source: spent 7.5 of them working at Google, various teams)
      - username90 7y ago
        20% time still exists, you don't even need to tell your manager you are doing it and your manager has limited power to stop you from doing it if he learns about it. If he is trying to stop you then you can escalate. Of course not a lot of people participate in 20% projects since just doing your main job is simpler than trying to balance two jobs. I only used it in short bursts myself, for example testing working on a project with a new team before transferring. However I feel it lives on in spirit, in that your coworkers and manager at Google typically doesn't know what you do from day to day and nobody will scold you or even notice if you work on a different project you feel is important for a week. If they make a fuzz just tell them it was your accumulated 20% time from the past 5 weeks. In short, 20% time means that 80% of the time you belong to your manager and 20% of the time you belong to yourself. You are still judged by 100% of your contributions, so if your the new framework you decided to write didn't turn out to be useful then it wont be of much help for perf. But if it became a huge hit then that 20% project might be more important than your main project.
      - mav3rick 7y ago
        It does exist. You didn't do it doesn't mean others aren't doing it right now.
  - tylerl 7y ago
    You'll be hard pressed at a well-established tech company like Google to find even one programming topic wherein you're not legitimately competing with your employer. Google's IARC process (where they officially sign over their claim to a given invention) is really, truly unusual. They absolute are going out of their way to be accommodating. Even their (super liberal) open-source process was practically unheard of when they started it. The fact that Chris DiBona runs that office is probably (definitely, absolutely) a factor. Also, I would exercise extreme caution when using the section 2870 argument with a random employer; there's nothing in there that says you can't be fired if you try it, even (and especially) if you win.
    - dmitrygr 7y ago
      Being fired isn't a big deal. In silicon valley you could spit, and hit three companies that'll hire you, at least one of them good
WalterGR 7y ago
If you work at Google and want to do some open source project on the side, the code is owned by Google and is under Github.com/google. Not necessarily. See this comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15592993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15592993 - which is a child comment of the one you linked to.
tylerl 7y ago
Mine isn't. https://github.com/tylerl/filterpipes https://github.com/tylerl/filterpipes Since I wrote it on my own time, I had my pick of going the IARC route vs going the Google open-source route, and I picked open-source with a Google copyright because it was simpler (though I fully intend to go with IARC on another project just to try it out). It's on my own github instead of Google's because (again) it was simpler. Since it contains zero Google-specific anything and wasn't made on company time, they didn't care which I picked at the time. In retrospect it probably would have been cooler to publish it under their name instead of mine, but aw well.

by ipsum2 7y ago

9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago

Not necessarily: here's Chris DiBona explaining how it works. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15594045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15594045

zamadatix 7y ago

Here I am just wishing my company would even allow me to post the source of a project I've worked on with any license and apparently Google isn't worth praise for hosting all such projects with an Apache license by default and a review process if you'd like to try to keep copyright. https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/

dmitrygr 7y ago
If you live in CA, you're good to do it: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-96.html https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-96.html as long as you do it on your time, using your own resources, and do not compete with your workplace. The fact that google (or other employers) do not go out of their way to tell you this is, of course, understandable.
- jefftk 7y ago
  > do not compete with your workplace Google does enough different things that this is often unclear. The IARC program lets you get a clear opinion from the company on whether they consider your work to be fully separate.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  For any large company this effectively means that almost all of your side projects can be construed as falling afoul of this law.
- kccqzy 7y ago
  No, the point is Google goes beyond the typical organization in that it provides 20% time which can, if you desire, be used to work on personal projects even with Google equipment. That's better than using after-work hours and your own resources.
  - dmitrygr 7y ago
    20% time hasn't existed in 8 years at least (source: spent 7.5 of them working at Google, various teams)
    - username90 7y ago
      20% time still exists, you don't even need to tell your manager you are doing it and your manager has limited power to stop you from doing it if he learns about it. If he is trying to stop you then you can escalate. Of course not a lot of people participate in 20% projects since just doing your main job is simpler than trying to balance two jobs. I only used it in short bursts myself, for example testing working on a project with a new team before transferring. However I feel it lives on in spirit, in that your coworkers and manager at Google typically doesn't know what you do from day to day and nobody will scold you or even notice if you work on a different project you feel is important for a week. If they make a fuzz just tell them it was your accumulated 20% time from the past 5 weeks. In short, 20% time means that 80% of the time you belong to your manager and 20% of the time you belong to yourself. You are still judged by 100% of your contributions, so if your the new framework you decided to write didn't turn out to be useful then it wont be of much help for perf. But if it became a huge hit then that 20% project might be more important than your main project.
    - mav3rick 7y ago
      It does exist. You didn't do it doesn't mean others aren't doing it right now.
- tylerl 7y ago
  You'll be hard pressed at a well-established tech company like Google to find even one programming topic wherein you're not legitimately competing with your employer. Google's IARC process (where they officially sign over their claim to a given invention) is really, truly unusual. They absolute are going out of their way to be accommodating. Even their (super liberal) open-source process was practically unheard of when they started it. The fact that Chris DiBona runs that office is probably (definitely, absolutely) a factor. Also, I would exercise extreme caution when using the section 2870 argument with a random employer; there's nothing in there that says you can't be fired if you try it, even (and especially) if you win.
  - dmitrygr 7y ago
    Being fired isn't a big deal. In silicon valley you could spit, and hit three companies that'll hire you, at least one of them good

WalterGR 7y ago

If you work at Google and want to do some open source project on the side, the code is owned by Google and is under Github.com/google. Not necessarily. See this comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15592993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15592993 - which is a child comment of the one you linked to.

tylerl 7y ago

Mine isn't. https://github.com/tylerl/filterpipes https://github.com/tylerl/filterpipes Since I wrote it on my own time, I had my pick of going the IARC route vs going the Google open-source route, and I picked open-source with a Google copyright because it was simpler (though I fully intend to go with IARC on another project just to try it out). It's on my own github instead of Google's because (again) it was simpler. Since it contains zero Google-specific anything and wasn't made on company time, they didn't care which I picked at the time. In retrospect it probably would have been cooler to publish it under their name instead of mine, but aw well.