6 ms·

Yes they are required to release it. 'Release' doesn't have to mean 'on the internet'. Even if it's sent out on 5¼ inch floppies by the slowest postal service k

by H3g3m0n 13y ago

Yes they are required to release it. 'Release' doesn't have to mean 'on the internet'. Even if it's sent out on 5¼ inch floppies by the slowest postal service known to man and only makes its way onto the internet by a 3rd party its still released.

DannyBee 13y ago
1. Besides being an engineer, I'm an IP lawyer specializing in open source (and run open source license compliance for Google), so I tend to use very precise terminology since the licenses do. 2. I actually was the person who put up the current glass kernel release. 3. Again, the parent i responded to implied Google has some affirmative obligation to place the source code on the internet. They don't. They are only required to make a written offer. Someone can take them up on that written offer, yes, and then they could repost it to the internet, but Google definitely has no affirmative obligation to place the GPL'd source code on the internet as was implied. We do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but ...
- doktrin 13y ago
  > We do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but ... I don't really understand where this is going. Is there some implication that Google would stand to benefit in any way from not releasing the code?
  - barista 13y ago
    must be the case otherwise why would they not release the Glass platform code? The kernel code is not that interesting anyways.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    No, it's just a common misconception about the GPL, and it actually pops up on GPL violation lists, so i figured i'd take the time to point out it's not correct, and apparently start a large group of random replies about it. I personally think the written offer approach should never have been added, but ...
    - saurik 13y ago
      That written offer must accompany the physical product. Google did not do this as far as I know. I mean, if we are going to be technical about this, the GPL states that even if you distribute the code via a "network server", you still must provide, accompanying the physical product, a "written offer" (it's the same clause) to give the user said code via that path. Really, all doe88's point was is that when Google sold this thing, they were already on the hook for this: he didn't even mention the "Internet" (your technicality), he just said "release", and providing a written offer in the box would have satisfied that. I don't even think doe88 was aggravated at Google: he seemed to just be pointing out that this isn't really news.
      - DannyBee 13y ago
        You are thinking of GPLv3, not GPLv2, when you speak of the network server distribution. :)
        jacquesm 13y ago
        I can see you're trying to perform some kind of public service by splitting legal hairs about what is/is not required but by doing so you are actually hurting the interests of your employer. By stating that Google is not required to provide the code as offered but only on written request you are very much going by the letter of the document and not by the reality of the situation, which is that by doing that you'd be putting up an unnecessary barrier. So even if you are 100% on the ball in this thread you have still managed to score an own goal. When people use words like 'required' they don't mean this in the legal narrowest possible interpretation of the words, they mean as in morally obligated. You can then put on your IP lawyer hat and show how good you are at splitting hairs but consider that you are not just speaking for yourself here but for google as a whole by invoking them and appealing to authority in the way you do.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        13y ago
- fistan 13y ago
  1. You didn't have to tell anyone you were a lawyer. Just speak and it will remove all doubt. 2. Who you are is irrelevant to the original comment... 3. Your third statement only affirms your status of lawyer as you are twisting a statement to suit yours. original statement: It's not as if they were making us a gift... As soon as they sold their first device it was required by the Linux kernel GPL2 license to release the kernel source code. Your version: <He> implied Google has some affirmative obligation to place the source code on the internet...Google definitely has no affirmative obligation to place the GPL'd source code on the internet as was implied I still can't see how releasing the source on the internet was implied regardless of your lawyering... ;)
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    1. Fair enough 2. I only pointed it out to show that I actually do GPL compliance all the time, and, more importantly, because one of the siblings said "Do you work for Google by any chance? It's good manners to technically declare any conflict of interest. Not technically required, but technically suggested by the technicians at HN". Though i've mentioned in numerous comments that I work for Google, I felt it only fair to mention it again. 3. I have twisted nothing, IMHO, only asserted there was an implication. That is not twisting words. That is claiming he implied something. In any case, the original statement is actually factually incorrect, even if you remove the clear implication. Let's assume for a second that we remove the internet part and stick with "obligation to release". It's still wrong, as there is no obligation to release anything, only one to make a written offer. That is not the same obligation as "release source code". The have an obligation to honor that written offer, which may later result in a release, but the obligation to make a written offer is not the same as an obligation to release. (not to mention that twisting the language of the GPL to imply an obligation to make a written offer is the same as an obligation to release code, as done by my parent, shows that it's not just lawyers who do it ...)
    - doktrin 13y ago
      > The have an obligation to honor that written offer, which may later result in a release, but the obligation to make a written offer is not the same as an obligation to release. The distinction appears to be academic at best, and therefore your objection to the grand-grand-whatever-parent seems pointless - thus the confusion here. edit : just saw your clarification as to why you made the comment in the first place. Fair enough.
- barista 13y ago
  It is sad to see Google get into the technicalities of things rather than doing the right thing in the spirit of doing so.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Errr, as i said, we do it because it's the right thing to do. In any case, i'm a lawyer, they pay me to care about technicalities and argue about pointless stuff. What were you expecting? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUKmq7UMJys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUKmq7UMJys
    - OGinparadise 13y ago
      You are not doing them any favors, first by not disclosing your employment at Google and second by what you said. If I were Larry Page or Ballmer or...I'd force every employee to declare "Disclosure: I work for [Company,] but the opinions are mine"
      - DannyBee 13y ago
        As mentioned, i've disclosed my affiliation numerous times in these types of discussions, and it's certainly not hidden anywhere. I'm not writing public blog posts or articles, so i feel no urge to start and end every hacker news comment with "I work for Google". In fact, when I did, i'll point out someone said it wasn't relevant! As for the rest, honestly, that just tells me I wouldn't want to work for you. If you don't believe your employees can have a reasonable discussion about the actual requirements vs perceived requirements of an open source license, that would be a sucky workplace, and it would make you a less desirable employer The same is true if you can't have a discussion about random esoteric areas of licensing without making assumptions about the views of an employer. If you want to know what Google's views are, i'm happy to tell you, otherwise, the world would generally be a better place if people would stop having to add disclaimers all over the place when having normal discussions (As a random aside, if you ever have the occasion to join a mailing list that has lawyers from multiple companies, about 95% of the text is disclaimers)
- latj 13y ago
  I'm not saying this is a bad thing...but my gut instinct is that this is a business decision and not "doing the right thing" unless by "doing the right thing" you meant doing the thing that makes good business sense.
- catshirt 13y ago
  > Again, the parent i responded to implied Google has some affirmative obligation to place the source code on the internet from where did you extrapolate this? i can't find any reference to the internet, implied or otherwise. does the term "release" carry legal weight in court with implications i'm unaware of?
- rdl 13y ago
  Are all of Google's lawyers also hackers/developers? I'm amazed/impressed.
- OGinparadise 13y ago
  >> Again, the parent i responded to implied Google has some affirmative obligation to place the source code on the internet. They don't. He never said that. He said: As soon as they sold their first device it was required by the Linux kernel GPL2 license to release the kernel source code. RELEASE to a person or to 5 billion, online or papyrus is the same. Technically and all. For a guy that clings to a word and tries to write a book on its meaning, you sure screwed up.

by H3g3m0n 13y ago

DannyBee 13y ago

1. Besides being an engineer, I'm an IP lawyer specializing in open source (and run open source license compliance for Google), so I tend to use very precise terminology since the licenses do. 2. I actually was the person who put up the current glass kernel release. 3. Again, the parent i responded to implied Google has some affirmative obligation to place the source code on the internet. They don't. They are only required to make a written offer. Someone can take them up on that written offer, yes, and then they could repost it to the internet, but Google definitely has no affirmative obligation to place the GPL'd source code on the internet as was implied. We do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but ...

doktrin 13y ago
> We do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but ... I don't really understand where this is going. Is there some implication that Google would stand to benefit in any way from not releasing the code?
- barista 13y ago
  must be the case otherwise why would they not release the Glass platform code? The kernel code is not that interesting anyways.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  No, it's just a common misconception about the GPL, and it actually pops up on GPL violation lists, so i figured i'd take the time to point out it's not correct, and apparently start a large group of random replies about it. I personally think the written offer approach should never have been added, but ...
  - saurik 13y ago
    That written offer must accompany the physical product. Google did not do this as far as I know. I mean, if we are going to be technical about this, the GPL states that even if you distribute the code via a "network server", you still must provide, accompanying the physical product, a "written offer" (it's the same clause) to give the user said code via that path. Really, all doe88's point was is that when Google sold this thing, they were already on the hook for this: he didn't even mention the "Internet" (your technicality), he just said "release", and providing a written offer in the box would have satisfied that. I don't even think doe88 was aggravated at Google: he seemed to just be pointing out that this isn't really news.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      You are thinking of GPLv3, not GPLv2, when you speak of the network server distribution. :)
      - jacquesm 13y ago
        I can see you're trying to perform some kind of public service by splitting legal hairs about what is/is not required but by doing so you are actually hurting the interests of your employer. By stating that Google is not required to provide the code as offered but only on written request you are very much going by the letter of the document and not by the reality of the situation, which is that by doing that you'd be putting up an unnecessary barrier. So even if you are 100% on the ball in this thread you have still managed to score an own goal. When people use words like 'required' they don't mean this in the legal narrowest possible interpretation of the words, they mean as in morally obligated. You can then put on your IP lawyer hat and show how good you are at splitting hairs but consider that you are not just speaking for yourself here but for google as a whole by invoking them and appealing to authority in the way you do.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        13y ago
fistan 13y ago
1. You didn't have to tell anyone you were a lawyer. Just speak and it will remove all doubt. 2. Who you are is irrelevant to the original comment... 3. Your third statement only affirms your status of lawyer as you are twisting a statement to suit yours. original statement: It's not as if they were making us a gift... As soon as they sold their first device it was required by the Linux kernel GPL2 license to release the kernel source code. Your version: <He> implied Google has some affirmative obligation to place the source code on the internet...Google definitely has no affirmative obligation to place the GPL'd source code on the internet as was implied I still can't see how releasing the source on the internet was implied regardless of your lawyering... ;)
- DannyBee 13y ago
  1. Fair enough 2. I only pointed it out to show that I actually do GPL compliance all the time, and, more importantly, because one of the siblings said "Do you work for Google by any chance? It's good manners to technically declare any conflict of interest. Not technically required, but technically suggested by the technicians at HN". Though i've mentioned in numerous comments that I work for Google, I felt it only fair to mention it again. 3. I have twisted nothing, IMHO, only asserted there was an implication. That is not twisting words. That is claiming he implied something. In any case, the original statement is actually factually incorrect, even if you remove the clear implication. Let's assume for a second that we remove the internet part and stick with "obligation to release". It's still wrong, as there is no obligation to release anything, only one to make a written offer. That is not the same obligation as "release source code". The have an obligation to honor that written offer, which may later result in a release, but the obligation to make a written offer is not the same as an obligation to release. (not to mention that twisting the language of the GPL to imply an obligation to make a written offer is the same as an obligation to release code, as done by my parent, shows that it's not just lawyers who do it ...)
  - doktrin 13y ago
    > The have an obligation to honor that written offer, which may later result in a release, but the obligation to make a written offer is not the same as an obligation to release. The distinction appears to be academic at best, and therefore your objection to the grand-grand-whatever-parent seems pointless - thus the confusion here. edit : just saw your clarification as to why you made the comment in the first place. Fair enough.
barista 13y ago
It is sad to see Google get into the technicalities of things rather than doing the right thing in the spirit of doing so.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Errr, as i said, we do it because it's the right thing to do. In any case, i'm a lawyer, they pay me to care about technicalities and argue about pointless stuff. What were you expecting? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUKmq7UMJys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUKmq7UMJys
  - OGinparadise 13y ago
    You are not doing them any favors, first by not disclosing your employment at Google and second by what you said. If I were Larry Page or Ballmer or...I'd force every employee to declare "Disclosure: I work for [Company,] but the opinions are mine"
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      As mentioned, i've disclosed my affiliation numerous times in these types of discussions, and it's certainly not hidden anywhere. I'm not writing public blog posts or articles, so i feel no urge to start and end every hacker news comment with "I work for Google". In fact, when I did, i'll point out someone said it wasn't relevant! As for the rest, honestly, that just tells me I wouldn't want to work for you. If you don't believe your employees can have a reasonable discussion about the actual requirements vs perceived requirements of an open source license, that would be a sucky workplace, and it would make you a less desirable employer The same is true if you can't have a discussion about random esoteric areas of licensing without making assumptions about the views of an employer. If you want to know what Google's views are, i'm happy to tell you, otherwise, the world would generally be a better place if people would stop having to add disclaimers all over the place when having normal discussions (As a random aside, if you ever have the occasion to join a mailing list that has lawyers from multiple companies, about 95% of the text is disclaimers)
latj 13y ago
I'm not saying this is a bad thing...but my gut instinct is that this is a business decision and not "doing the right thing" unless by "doing the right thing" you meant doing the thing that makes good business sense.
catshirt 13y ago
> Again, the parent i responded to implied Google has some affirmative obligation to place the source code on the internet from where did you extrapolate this? i can't find any reference to the internet, implied or otherwise. does the term "release" carry legal weight in court with implications i'm unaware of?
rdl 13y ago
Are all of Google's lawyers also hackers/developers? I'm amazed/impressed.
OGinparadise 13y ago
>> Again, the parent i responded to implied Google has some affirmative obligation to place the source code on the internet. They don't. He never said that. He said: As soon as they sold their first device it was required by the Linux kernel GPL2 license to release the kernel source code. RELEASE to a person or to 5 billion, online or papyrus is the same. Technically and all. For a guy that clings to a word and tries to write a book on its meaning, you sure screwed up.