6 ms·

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 forc

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)
- 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 ago
    Wouldn't you also have to make a disclaimer for the mostly anti google/ google glass posts you have made?
    - OGinparadise 13y ago
      Wouldn'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 ago
    In the original post, he said "we could ship...". That's a pretty clear disclosure of his Googleness to me.
tptacek 13y ago
Again 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 ago
  Please 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 ago
    Ok, anonymous "if I could blacklist you I would" guy. I'll try to be more careful about generalizing.

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)

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 ago
  Wouldn't you also have to make a disclaimer for the mostly anti google/ google glass posts you have made?
  - OGinparadise 13y ago
    Wouldn'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 ago
  In the original post, he said "we could ship...". That's a pretty clear disclosure of his Googleness to me.

tptacek 13y ago

Again 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 ago
Please 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 ago
  Ok, anonymous "if I could blacklist you I would" guy. I'll try to be more careful about generalizing.