6 ms·

The copyright of the thing Googlers build on their oswn time are usually owned by Google and so it ends up on the Google org if they want it on GitHub. They usu

by tym0 5y ago

The copyright of the thing Googlers build on their oswn time are usually owned by Google and so it ends up on the Google org if they want it on GitHub. They usually have a disclaimer like "this is not a official Google product..."

codewiz 5y ago
This isn't correct: if a Googler writes some code from scratch, which is unrelated to their work, on their personal time, and using their personal laptop... then it's definitely not owned by Google. There could be gray areas where code ownership could be disputed, but in general your employer owns only the intellectual property it paid for. Source: I'm a Googler (until next month).
- wokwokwok 5y ago
  Are you sure? Not in the “haha, yes of course”, in the “I’ve spoken to HR and have it writing” kind of way. I’ve heard this is not true from others, it is simply true in certain geographical regions where local laws override the contract you signed.
  - mrgriscom 5y ago
    "The provisions of this Agreement requiring disclosure and assignment of Inventions to Google do not apply to any invention that I have developed entirely on my own time without using any of Google Property (as defined below) or Google Confidential Information, except for those inventions that either (i) relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to Google’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of Google or (ii) result from any work or services that I performed for Google."
    - q3k 5y ago
      > (i) relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to Google’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of Google That's the catch. Not related to what _you_ do at Google, but related to _anything_ that Google does. Pretty much all the stuff I wanted to work on in my spare time while employed at Google could be seen as related to Google's business/research, as Google does a lot of things. And that's how Google seems to read this too, considering how the Open Sourcing documentation [1] is written. [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210710210932/https://opensource.google/docs/iarc/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210710210932/https://opensourc... “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.”
- marcyb5st 5y ago
  Not true. You need explicit permission (there is a process for obtaining it, and it is very lightweight as I've done it myself). The general idea is that you get permission without much hassle if you develop something that doesn't compete with Google. You need to argue your case otherwise. Source: I'm a Googler that went through the process before. Edit #1 for all Googlers reading this: search "IARC" internally and you should land on the proper page to kickstart the process.
  - kyrra 5y ago
    Btw, Google actually publishes this documentation externally. https://opensource.google/docs/releasing/ https://opensource.google/docs/releasing/
    - q3k 5y ago
      They removed the `go/iarc` mirror recently, now seemingly only available on the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20210710210932/https://opensource.google/docs/iarc/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210710210932/https://opensourc...
      - kyrra 5y ago
        Well that interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Wonder why they did that.
    - marcyb5st 5y ago
      Thanks, I didn't know this. I thought it was only internal stuff.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
    Many companies make claims over their employees' intellectual property. How much of a claim they actually have legally is a different question, which depends on the country (and sometimes state) where the employee works, and companies routinely attempt to claim more than they legally can. Compare e.g. https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/property-law/california-labor-code-2870-definition https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/property-law/californ... I bet Google lacks the copyright for many of the projects they claim.
- sneak 5y ago
  There is very little code that a Googler could write that is unrelated to their employer’s business. You’re almost certainly going to need an explicit carve-out, as other Googlers in the thread have pointed out.
  - travelbuffoon 5y ago
    There’s a difference between: unrelated to your job, and unrelated to the business as a whole. In some locations, employers can’t claim copyright on works unrelated to your current role.
    - geofft 5y ago
      In many locations they can. I paid my own lawyers to review a Google NYC job offer and they said, yes, Google can enforce this clause. (Obviously this is not legal advice, talk to your own layers, etc.)
- geofft 5y ago
  Double-check your employment contract. The offer I received (and declined, primarily for other reasons but this was on the list) in 2017 clearly stated that it had to be unrelated to any of Google's work as a whole, and in fact to Google's actual or anticipated work - not just to the employee's assigned work.
- inshadows 5y ago
  OK. So the things under google GitHub organization are personal projects for which googlers didn't bother to get the permission?
  - skybrian 5y ago
    Often they are not entirely personal in that they wrote the code using 20% time (so this is code paid for by Google) and use them as part of their job and/or make them available to other users internally. So Zx might be used inside Google somewhere. Since they started out owned by Google, you need permission to open source them. But how much company support they have and how popular they are varies.
travelbuffoon 5y ago
Yup - or at least that’s what Google tells their employees. Want to publish something - you’d better get permission, and stick the Google name on it. And based on my limited understanding of the US contracts, is also true in practice. There are some exceptions depending on local laws and contracts though, so it’s only mostly and not always true.

by tym0 5y ago

codewiz 5y ago

This isn't correct: if a Googler writes some code from scratch, which is unrelated to their work, on their personal time, and using their personal laptop... then it's definitely not owned by Google. There could be gray areas where code ownership could be disputed, but in general your employer owns only the intellectual property it paid for. Source: I'm a Googler (until next month).

wokwokwok 5y ago
Are you sure? Not in the “haha, yes of course”, in the “I’ve spoken to HR and have it writing” kind of way. I’ve heard this is not true from others, it is simply true in certain geographical regions where local laws override the contract you signed.
- mrgriscom 5y ago
  "The provisions of this Agreement requiring disclosure and assignment of Inventions to Google do not apply to any invention that I have developed entirely on my own time without using any of Google Property (as defined below) or Google Confidential Information, except for those inventions that either (i) relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to Google’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of Google or (ii) result from any work or services that I performed for Google."
  - q3k 5y ago
    > (i) relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to Google’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of Google That's the catch. Not related to what _you_ do at Google, but related to _anything_ that Google does. Pretty much all the stuff I wanted to work on in my spare time while employed at Google could be seen as related to Google's business/research, as Google does a lot of things. And that's how Google seems to read this too, considering how the Open Sourcing documentation [1] is written. [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210710210932/https://opensource.google/docs/iarc/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210710210932/https://opensourc... “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.”
marcyb5st 5y ago
Not true. You need explicit permission (there is a process for obtaining it, and it is very lightweight as I've done it myself). The general idea is that you get permission without much hassle if you develop something that doesn't compete with Google. You need to argue your case otherwise. Source: I'm a Googler that went through the process before. Edit #1 for all Googlers reading this: search "IARC" internally and you should land on the proper page to kickstart the process.
- kyrra 5y ago
  Btw, Google actually publishes this documentation externally. https://opensource.google/docs/releasing/ https://opensource.google/docs/releasing/
  - q3k 5y ago
    They removed the `go/iarc` mirror recently, now seemingly only available on the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20210710210932/https://opensource.google/docs/iarc/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210710210932/https://opensourc...
    - kyrra 5y ago
      Well that interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Wonder why they did that.
  - marcyb5st 5y ago
    Thanks, I didn't know this. I thought it was only internal stuff.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  Many companies make claims over their employees' intellectual property. How much of a claim they actually have legally is a different question, which depends on the country (and sometimes state) where the employee works, and companies routinely attempt to claim more than they legally can. Compare e.g. https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/property-law/california-labor-code-2870-definition https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/property-law/californ... I bet Google lacks the copyright for many of the projects they claim.
sneak 5y ago
There is very little code that a Googler could write that is unrelated to their employer’s business. You’re almost certainly going to need an explicit carve-out, as other Googlers in the thread have pointed out.
- travelbuffoon 5y ago
  There’s a difference between: unrelated to your job, and unrelated to the business as a whole. In some locations, employers can’t claim copyright on works unrelated to your current role.
  - geofft 5y ago
    In many locations they can. I paid my own lawyers to review a Google NYC job offer and they said, yes, Google can enforce this clause. (Obviously this is not legal advice, talk to your own layers, etc.)
geofft 5y ago
Double-check your employment contract. The offer I received (and declined, primarily for other reasons but this was on the list) in 2017 clearly stated that it had to be unrelated to any of Google's work as a whole, and in fact to Google's actual or anticipated work - not just to the employee's assigned work.
inshadows 5y ago
OK. So the things under google GitHub organization are personal projects for which googlers didn't bother to get the permission?
- skybrian 5y ago
  Often they are not entirely personal in that they wrote the code using 20% time (so this is code paid for by Google) and use them as part of their job and/or make them available to other users internally. So Zx might be used inside Google somewhere. Since they started out owned by Google, you need permission to open source them. But how much company support they have and how popular they are varies.

travelbuffoon 5y ago

Yup - or at least that’s what Google tells their employees. Want to publish something - you’d better get permission, and stick the Google name on it. And based on my limited understanding of the US contracts, is also true in practice. There are some exceptions depending on local laws and contracts though, so it’s only mostly and not always true.