5 ms·

Disclosure: I work at Google (but not on Fuchsia), and I contribute quite a bit to open-source projects. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice

Disclosure: I work at Google (but not on Fuchsia), and I contribute quite a bit to open-source projects. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by "you grant a license to Google to use it in non-proprietary code" — was that a typo and did you mean "proprietary"? In any case, Apache/BSD/MIT licensed code can already be used in proprietary code, the CLA does not change that. The Google ICLA you cited [1] is basically the same as the ASF ICLA [2]; the gist is that you retain copyright of your contributions, you're not giving up your copyright — i.e., it's a copyright license, not a copyright assignment (as some other CLAs are). And, naturally, anyone can fork it if they wish, or distribute proprietary, non-open-source versions of an Apache/BSD/MIT-licensed project, subject to appropriate attributions, if required, by the relevant licenses. However, neither you (nor Google) can claim copyright over the entire project, because the copyrights are held by the relevant contributors. Changing the license for the entire project requires agreement from all copyright holders — for example, see what LLVM had to do when they chose to add a clause to their license [3]. [1] https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual [2] https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.pdf https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.pdf [3] https://llvm.org/foundation/relicensing/ https://llvm.org/foundation/relicensing/

ColanR 6y ago
>> If you submit code, you grant a license to Google to use it in non-proprietary [sic, I assume] code. > it's a copyright license, not a copyright assignment >> So, at some point, once users and developers are locked in, Google can make later versions closed and proprietary enough to stop clones. > you're welcome to fork it if you wish, or distribute proprietary, non-open-source versions of the code It sounds like you're agreeing completely with everything the parent said.
- mbrukman 6y ago
  Sorry for not making it more clear; I was responding to the statement: > Not really open. If you submit code, you grant a license to Google to use it in non-proprietary code.[1] So, at some point, once users and developers are locked in, Google can make later versions closed and proprietary enough to stop clones. The CLA does not change anything about the license, and does not prevent or make it possible (or easier) to make proprietary versions of the software (or your contributions) — all those conditions are in the license itself, the CLA does not override or amend any terms of the license. In other words, you can make the same argument about any Apache, BSD, or MIT software, while the poster is claiming that it's the CLA that enables making future releases proprietary, which is why I pointed out that the Google CLA is the same as the ASF CLA. If the argument is that Apache/BSD/MIT licenses are "not really open" because they allow incorporating them into proprietary software without releasing code, that's a different argument and is really a distinction between the "permissive" licenses like Apache/BSD/MIT and the "copyleft" licenses like GPL, but again, that has nothing to do with the CLA.
  - ColanR 6y ago
    That's a very fair point. Thanks for clarifying.
- joking 6y ago
  The thing is that anyone can make that fork and use the code on a proprietary system, not only google. The same that apple did with the mach kernel and any other one could have done.
choppaface 6y ago
The point is that when a non-Googler contributes code, it’s non-proprietary since the non-Googler is by definition a non-Googler. What the CLA does not prohibit is proprietary use—- your lengthy answer. The OP makes the point that Google will find a way to use public contributions for Google’s own profit. The sheer size of the response above, let alone content, is what creates the tone of “talking past the customer” which is what has alienated so many people from Google. The problem I’ve repeatedly experienced in Google open source and as a Google Cloud customer (contract with Google FDEs on-site) is that Googlers just don’t listen. You can’t trample the customer with your own narrative no matter how correct and elegant it is. You can disagree, but you can’t deny the feelings of others. It just doesn’t work that way.
- ColanR 6y ago
  They aren't disagreeing. Parse what they said, and notice nothing contradicts the post they're replying to. That's what I didn't want to say explicitly in my other comment: they made a long-winded comment that appeared to express a negative statement about what the poster said, while technically agreeing. To me, it's a perfect example of a lawyer's yes-that-sounds-like-no. Edit: glad I didn't say this in the other comment. Shouldn't have jumped to conclusions.
  - mbrukman 6y ago
    I've added a response to your earlier comment to clarify: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23365469 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23365469
- mbrukman 6y ago
  Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I've added a clarification separately, please take a look there first: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23365469 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23365469 > The point is that when a non-Googler contributes code, it’s non-proprietary since the non-Googler is by definition a non-Googler. I think we are using different definitions of "proprietary". I'm using it to mean "non-open-source" [1], and you're using it to mean "employed by a specific company" (or something else); can you please clarify what you mean or rephrase what you're trying to say? > What the CLA does not prohibit is proprietary use—- your lengthy answer. The OP makes the point that Google will find a way to use public contributions for Google’s own profit. That's not the purpose of a CLA; that's the purpose of a project's license. That was the point of my post. Anyone can take a project with an Apache/BSD/MIT license (whether or not the project has a CLA, it's orthogonal), make a proprietary product from it, distribute it, sell it, etc. and they would be just fine doing it, without also sharing any of the source. To put it another way, a CLA cannot restrict proprietary or commercial use of a patch or contribution, if the underlying project license is Apache/BSD/MIT, because all those licenses already allow commercial use, incorporating software into proprietary / closed-source products, etc. Such a CLA would be incompatible with the project's license. I've never seen an Apache/BSD/MIT project where the CLA (and only the CLA) prohibits commercial / proprietary / closed-source or any other use cases — if you have an example or two, could you please point them out? I'm very curious to see how this would work in practice, because this seems like a strong contradiction, so I would be interested to see how this plays out in practice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software
dilandau 6y ago
You're talking out your ass, Google. Everyone knows how much Google cares about open source and open platforms...
- entha_saava 6y ago
  Everyone knows how much the Google haters opt for a company that actively patents most trivial stuff and arguably contributes much less to open source.
- dang 6y ago
  Given the comment you're replying to, this counts as a personal attack. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't. Even as a top-level post this is a bad comment for HN, regardless of how one feels about Google. Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
andrekandre 6y ago
> And, naturally, anyone can fork it if they wish, or distribute proprietary, non-open-source versions of an Apache/BSD/MIT-licensed project, subject to appropriate attributions, if required, by the relevant licenses. so, basically you submit free labor for the use by for-profit corporations, but you dont get those same freedoms to do so on your own devices, got it personally, i wouldnt mind so much if users of submitted code were payed "dividends" for ones labor when used in propriatary for-profit services/products, but seing as that is not the case, well, i cannot abide...

ColanR 6y ago

>> If you submit code, you grant a license to Google to use it in non-proprietary [sic, I assume] code. > it's a copyright license, not a copyright assignment >> So, at some point, once users and developers are locked in, Google can make later versions closed and proprietary enough to stop clones. > you're welcome to fork it if you wish, or distribute proprietary, non-open-source versions of the code It sounds like you're agreeing completely with everything the parent said.

mbrukman 6y ago
Sorry for not making it more clear; I was responding to the statement: > Not really open. If you submit code, you grant a license to Google to use it in non-proprietary code.[1] So, at some point, once users and developers are locked in, Google can make later versions closed and proprietary enough to stop clones. The CLA does not change anything about the license, and does not prevent or make it possible (or easier) to make proprietary versions of the software (or your contributions) — all those conditions are in the license itself, the CLA does not override or amend any terms of the license. In other words, you can make the same argument about any Apache, BSD, or MIT software, while the poster is claiming that it's the CLA that enables making future releases proprietary, which is why I pointed out that the Google CLA is the same as the ASF CLA. If the argument is that Apache/BSD/MIT licenses are "not really open" because they allow incorporating them into proprietary software without releasing code, that's a different argument and is really a distinction between the "permissive" licenses like Apache/BSD/MIT and the "copyleft" licenses like GPL, but again, that has nothing to do with the CLA.
- ColanR 6y ago
  That's a very fair point. Thanks for clarifying.
joking 6y ago
The thing is that anyone can make that fork and use the code on a proprietary system, not only google. The same that apple did with the mach kernel and any other one could have done.

choppaface 6y ago

The point is that when a non-Googler contributes code, it’s non-proprietary since the non-Googler is by definition a non-Googler. What the CLA does not prohibit is proprietary use—- your lengthy answer. The OP makes the point that Google will find a way to use public contributions for Google’s own profit. The sheer size of the response above, let alone content, is what creates the tone of “talking past the customer” which is what has alienated so many people from Google. The problem I’ve repeatedly experienced in Google open source and as a Google Cloud customer (contract with Google FDEs on-site) is that Googlers just don’t listen. You can’t trample the customer with your own narrative no matter how correct and elegant it is. You can disagree, but you can’t deny the feelings of others. It just doesn’t work that way.

ColanR 6y ago
They aren't disagreeing. Parse what they said, and notice nothing contradicts the post they're replying to. That's what I didn't want to say explicitly in my other comment: they made a long-winded comment that appeared to express a negative statement about what the poster said, while technically agreeing. To me, it's a perfect example of a lawyer's yes-that-sounds-like-no. Edit: glad I didn't say this in the other comment. Shouldn't have jumped to conclusions.
- mbrukman 6y ago
  I've added a response to your earlier comment to clarify: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23365469 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23365469
mbrukman 6y ago
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I've added a clarification separately, please take a look there first: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23365469 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23365469 > The point is that when a non-Googler contributes code, it’s non-proprietary since the non-Googler is by definition a non-Googler. I think we are using different definitions of "proprietary". I'm using it to mean "non-open-source" [1], and you're using it to mean "employed by a specific company" (or something else); can you please clarify what you mean or rephrase what you're trying to say? > What the CLA does not prohibit is proprietary use—- your lengthy answer. The OP makes the point that Google will find a way to use public contributions for Google’s own profit. That's not the purpose of a CLA; that's the purpose of a project's license. That was the point of my post. Anyone can take a project with an Apache/BSD/MIT license (whether or not the project has a CLA, it's orthogonal), make a proprietary product from it, distribute it, sell it, etc. and they would be just fine doing it, without also sharing any of the source. To put it another way, a CLA cannot restrict proprietary or commercial use of a patch or contribution, if the underlying project license is Apache/BSD/MIT, because all those licenses already allow commercial use, incorporating software into proprietary / closed-source products, etc. Such a CLA would be incompatible with the project's license. I've never seen an Apache/BSD/MIT project where the CLA (and only the CLA) prohibits commercial / proprietary / closed-source or any other use cases — if you have an example or two, could you please point them out? I'm very curious to see how this would work in practice, because this seems like a strong contradiction, so I would be interested to see how this plays out in practice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software

dilandau 6y ago

You're talking out your ass, Google. Everyone knows how much Google cares about open source and open platforms...

entha_saava 6y ago
Everyone knows how much the Google haters opt for a company that actively patents most trivial stuff and arguably contributes much less to open source.
dang 6y ago
Given the comment you're replying to, this counts as a personal attack. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't. Even as a top-level post this is a bad comment for HN, regardless of how one feels about Google. Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

andrekandre 6y ago

> And, naturally, anyone can fork it if they wish, or distribute proprietary, non-open-source versions of an Apache/BSD/MIT-licensed project, subject to appropriate attributions, if required, by the relevant licenses. so, basically you submit free labor for the use by for-profit corporations, but you dont get those same freedoms to do so on your own devices, got it personally, i wouldnt mind so much if users of submitted code were payed "dividends" for ones labor when used in propriatary for-profit services/products, but seing as that is not the case, well, i cannot abide...