Hacker News Reader

Comment by DannyBee | Hacker News Reader

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 ...

View on HN

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... ;)

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 ...)

> 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.

FWIW: It turns out not to be academic in practice.

About 25-30% of the complaints about GPL violations i've seen (for example, on gpl-violations mailing lists, though at least there, there are more valid ones recently) are actually cases where the company has made a written offer, and the person's complaint is this is a GPL violation and they should have released the source instead.

Of course, this has changed over the years for the worse (in the sense that the percentage of actual compliance seems to be dropping), but it's still not uncommon.

If you make me a written offer to provide source code and then I follow up and write to you asking for the source code, and then following that you ship me a CD with source code on it, for all intents and purposes you have released the source code to me. I'm pretty sure that the definition of "release" is the problem in this thread.

I have 2 different ways to respond...

1. It is required the offer be made, there is reasonable probability that the offer will be accepted and Once accepted google is bound to meet this obligation.

Wouldn't that mean there is a reasonable probability that google would be required to release?

2. if not... ill append the original comment myself for clarity... cause me and that guy are tight...

What he meant to say was: "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 [if an offer they are required to make is accepted]"

Wouldn't that be require to release by proxy anyway...

It's like I always tell my mother in law that the door is open. In fact I am required to say that the door is always open...

I can prey that the soul sucking spawn of the nether realms never comes knocking but in effect I am obligated to provide.

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.

> 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?

> 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?

must be the case otherwise why would they not release the Glass platform code? The kernel code is not that interesting anyways.

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 ...

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.

You are thinking of GPLv3, not GPLv2, when you speak of the network server distribution. :)

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.

Own goal? You're the one who put the goalposts there.

He already said he thought they were morally required to release the code on the net. Also, what are you talking about?

He's a lawyer, it's his job to split hairs.

He's not trying to perform a public service. This is a thread demonstrably populated with whacked-out ideas of what the GPL says, he's a subject matter expert, and he's correcting them. He is performing a public service. You've been here long enough to see that, so I think you should start by acknowledging that.

Are all of Google's lawyers also hackers/developers? I'm amazed/impressed.

It is sad to see Google get into the technicalities of things rather than doing the right thing in the spirit of doing so.

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

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"

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)

>> 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".

Wouldn't you also have to make a disclaimer for the mostly anti google/ google glass posts you have made?

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?

In the original post, he said "we could ship...". That's a pretty clear disclosure of his Googleness to me.

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.

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.

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

Not 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.

I'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?

None 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"

Since 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)?

I 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?

I 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.

choosing the mechanism that made it easier to consume is not beside the point because google didn't have to do that. we know two things; 1, they had to make the source available, 2, they released the source online. We cannot assume they only did this because they had to, especially when they went above and beyond the requirements. With this logic, anybody that doesn't break the law only does so because of the law.

>> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com