5 ms·
It is sad to see Google get into the technicalities of things rather than doing the right thing in the spirit of doing so.
by 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 agoErrr, 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 agoYou 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 agoAs 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)
- OGinparadise 13y ago>> As for the rest, honestly, that just tells me I wouldn't want to work for you. So we agree on something. >>"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 " A lawyer that twisted in a pretzel over some useless technicality (we'll send it to the person/s that requested it vs posting it online) is now a phony champion of straight talking. Wow! They are two reasons why people should disclose their affiliations: one, so we know what's behind the words. If a company gives you a paycheck and you defend them or bash their competitors, people have to take that in consideration. Only in Google Land are bought opinions more important, or "ads are just more answers." And then there's company policy. Google would fire you in a heartbeat if you caused them harm, make no mistake. But apparently you know "Google's positions" so go right ahead. But frankly, if I could blacklist you, I would. Just for not disclosing that Google is your employer as you defended their "doing the right thing".
- robryan 13y agoWouldn't you also have to make a disclaimer for the mostly anti google/ google glass posts you have made?
- OGinparadise 13y agoWouldn't you also have to make a disclaimer for the mostly anti google/ google glass posts you have made? what disclaimer? That I am not their fanboy?
- rsanders 13y agoIn the original post, he said "we could ship...". That's a pretty clear disclosure of his Googleness to me.
- tptacek 13y agoAgain with this strain of comments that tries to demonize HN participants for where they work, as if direct experience with the subject matter of the thread is a bad thing. In this case, a subthread on OSS licensing and Google happens to be inhabited by the IP lawyer who managed the OSS licensing process for Google, and you found a way to be upset about that.
- OGinparadise 13y agoPlease do not generalize. One, I wished he had said right of the bat that "I am the Google lawyer responsible for...." and two, not twist words making online posting of the code a heroic act.
- tptacek 13y agoOk, anonymous "if I could blacklist you I would" guy. I'll try to be more careful about generalizing.
- barista 13y agoNot blaming you. You did what you were paid to do. What I am disappointed at is the fact that Google chose to only open the code that it HAD to do. It did choose the mechanism that made it easier to consume but that is besides the point. No point arguing here. Not trusting Google to do the right thing these days anyways.
- statictype 13y agoI'm curious. Do you also blame Apple and Microsoft and Facebook and Twitter for not doing the right thing when you don't see their full code base on github?
- felipe 13y agoNone of these companies you mentioned have a "Don't Be Evil" policy, nor they have a lawyer posting here claiming that they are doing a "public service"
- res0nat0r 13y agoSince Google doesn't share their bread and butter PageRank algorithm, does that make them evil? Also if releasing said algo would cause them to lose massive marketshare, wouldn't that also be evil (to their shareholders and employees)?
- felipe 13y agoI am simply pointing the fact that if you are going to claim yourself as the "good guy" the community will hold you to a higher standard, in reply to the parent comment. No one is expecting Google to do any charity, but Google themselves sell this image of do-good and pro-open source, so why the surprise when the community asks them to walk the talk?
- res0nat0r 13y agoI guess for the HN crowd enough will never be enough. What if they are keeping part of their codebase closed because they want to make money off of it? And if this is so anti good-guy, then if they released it and then the project was cancelled because they weren't able to recoup their costs is this still good-guy? IE: No more development from Google on this cutting edge product could be seen as a net loss for everyone vs. a win for 100% open source demands.