4 ms·

As a current Google employee, the OSS contribution process has gotten way better. Basically, anything that is BSD/MIT/Apache/LGPL/GPL/EPL/MPL no longer needs ap

As a current Google employee, the OSS contribution process has gotten way better. Basically, anything that is BSD/MIT/Apache/LGPL/GPL/EPL/MPL no longer needs approval. AGPL and the non-commercial licenses are still banned. Edit: The Google OSS contribution guidelines are actually public, if anyone wants to take a look: https://opensource.google/docs/patching/ https://opensource.google/docs/patching/

mtlynch 6y ago
Oh, cool. That's good news!
Aeolun 6y ago
How is AGPL noncommercial? You can definitely still sell the service as long as you publish the source.
- est31 6y ago
  GP said "AGPL and the noncommercial licenses". Means they are two separate categories.
boogies 6y ago
(deeper link: https://opensource.google/docs/patching/#forbidden https://opensource.google/docs/patching/#forbidden)
SSLy 6y ago
Which projects require SVP sign-off?
Doctor_Fegg 6y ago
Your periodic reminder: as the Google rules demonstrate, WTFPL works really well as a permissive-except-for-bigcos licence.
- joerichey 6y ago
  Personally, I would use an explicit non-commercial license in this case. WTFPL isn't a real license (and isn't considered open-source by OSI). Things like the AGPL and CC-BY-NC-* are actually written by lawyers and make it clear what you actually want.
  - Doctor_Fegg 6y ago
    I don’t want non-commercial. I want non-bigco.
corobo 6y ago
Is this only referring to in-work hours or are are they telling you what you can and can't do outside work? E: Oh it's the latter, this is pretty gross. A noncompete sure but what 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. That includes new development on personal projects you created prior to employment at Google. Disgusting amount of control over people's lives. Y'all need a union.
- malisper 6y ago
  > Disgusting amount of control over people's lives. Y'all need a union. FWIW this is more Google being risk adverse than Google being evil. If a Google employee in their free time contributes to an AGPL project, that employee needs to open source all IP related to their contribution to the project. Depending on the specifics and how the AGPL is interpreted in court, Google could be forced to open source their internal IP. FWIW, I believe all large companies take a similar stance on the AGPL.
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    > If a Google employee in their free time contributes to an AGPL project, that employee needs to open source all IP related to their contribution to the project Absolutely false. This is simply not how copyright works!
    - malisper 6y ago
      > Absolutely false. This is simply not how copyright works! How so? Here's what section 5 of the AGPL says[0]: > You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: > c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it. As for patents which is covered in section 11: > If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent license to downstream recipients. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html

mtlynch 6y ago

Oh, cool. That's good news!

Aeolun 6y ago

How is AGPL noncommercial? You can definitely still sell the service as long as you publish the source.

est31 6y ago
GP said "AGPL and the noncommercial licenses". Means they are two separate categories.

boogies 6y ago

(deeper link: https://opensource.google/docs/patching/#forbidden https://opensource.google/docs/patching/#forbidden)

SSLy 6y ago

Which projects require SVP sign-off?

Doctor_Fegg 6y ago

Your periodic reminder: as the Google rules demonstrate, WTFPL works really well as a permissive-except-for-bigcos licence.

joerichey 6y ago
Personally, I would use an explicit non-commercial license in this case. WTFPL isn't a real license (and isn't considered open-source by OSI). Things like the AGPL and CC-BY-NC-* are actually written by lawyers and make it clear what you actually want.
- Doctor_Fegg 6y ago
  I don’t want non-commercial. I want non-bigco.

corobo 6y ago

Is this only referring to in-work hours or are are they telling you what you can and can't do outside work? E: Oh it's the latter, this is pretty gross. A noncompete sure but what 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. That includes new development on personal projects you created prior to employment at Google. Disgusting amount of control over people's lives. Y'all need a union.

malisper 6y ago
> Disgusting amount of control over people's lives. Y'all need a union. FWIW this is more Google being risk adverse than Google being evil. If a Google employee in their free time contributes to an AGPL project, that employee needs to open source all IP related to their contribution to the project. Depending on the specifics and how the AGPL is interpreted in court, Google could be forced to open source their internal IP. FWIW, I believe all large companies take a similar stance on the AGPL.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  > If a Google employee in their free time contributes to an AGPL project, that employee needs to open source all IP related to their contribution to the project Absolutely false. This is simply not how copyright works!
  - malisper 6y ago
    > Absolutely false. This is simply not how copyright works! How so? Here's what section 5 of the AGPL says[0]: > You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: > c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it. As for patents which is covered in section 11: > If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent license to downstream recipients. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html