@unfa well, it sounds like a combination of control vs trust and cutting budgets.

Control vs trust is due to the criticality of various free software maintainers maintain things at will and we have seems many things break in history due to bad/missing updates.

And cutting budgets because I would guess that Google currently maintains their dependencies mostly themselves, but by pushing this proposal reducing their budget on things and outsource the work to the community.

@sheogorath I don't fully understand this, but do they want to have rights to demand stuff from people who volunteer on making FOSS, just because they need that software to do their business? Shouldn't they just hire such a person if it's so crucial for them?

@unfa if I got it correctly, they want to setup some sort of foundation that maintains a core set of open source software, which has stricter requirements for example requiring maintainers to be identified and have strong 4-eye principles. I guess they would love to hire half of that foundation or at least the leaderboard.

I guess maintainers who don't want to join will find their software forked or removed from Google's applications. But let's see what happens.

@unfa seems like the usual google thinking/acting like they own the place.

@falktx @unfa Reading the blog post, I don't get that impression at all. These all seem like reasonable ideas to address problems that everybody shares and I'm glad Google is putting resources into addressing them. The blog post ends by explicitly acknowledging that they don't own the place. To me the only part of that proposal that seems contentious is maintainers of widely used software to not be anonymous.

@be @falktx @unfa I dont think that's the point. If some software is mission-critical to Google, and they need more guarantees than relying on volunteers doing work for Google, they should hire someone to ensure everything runs smoothly. And the entire community would benefit. Plus, noone has ever imposed such rules on proprietary software.

@LuKaRo @be @unfa every time I have seen google employees submit patches to stuff I maintain, it always comes with the caveat that the google name needs to be in the authors list (even though it is a company, not the real author)
see github.com/jackaudio/jack2/pul

you both are making good points, I am just very cautious when it comes to google stuff.

google has a terrible history when it comes to maintaining stuff killedbygoogle.com/

@unfa please dont bump tickets that are now closed and discussed ended many months ago, that is not okay.

PS: I deleted the comment you just made

@falktx Well, ok - sorry, I just wanted to express my shock on the Google's policy.

@unfa that is understandable.

FYI opensource.google.com/docs/pat has details on the whole subject.

A lot of FLOSS developers dislike google, and it is not just because their are a Advertising/Data-Collection company that happens to make products to spread their business.

@falktx @LuKaRo @unfa Unfortunately it is common that employers retain copyright on anything made by employees in their capacity as employees. I agree that is messed up, and wouldn't it be rad if that was flipped upside down and made illegal?

@be @LuKaRo @unfa It is worse when companies require this when employees work on FLOSS stuff outside of working hours. Some (as was the case of someone I know recently) do not even allow you to work on FLOSS while working for them... 😡

I am glad that I do not have to deal with any of this, would be infuriating otherwise. On my previous job I asked for 1 day free per week to do FLOSS development, they were quite okay with it. And now, well, the development is 99% in the open anyway :D

@falktx @LuKaRo @unfa Is that legal for companies to claim copyright on activities done in the employee's own time? I genuinely don't know.

All the more reason for @conservancy 's ContractPatch initiative: sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/de

@be @falktx @LuKaRo Well, I understand that companies retain copyright for work that's was domek for them and paid by them. But as I understand Google wants credit on any code they employee contribute to FOSS projects in their free time. Which seems very abusive and nothing but a "PR" stunt.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!