You are my personal hero for today DannyBee, for speaking calmly and making sense on HN.
Let's make this question more relevant ... if you write server code that isn't released 'to the public', but powers your website which is publicly accessible, must you release the source code if your server was "linked with" (whatever that means) GPLed code?
("Must you release the source code if your server was linked with AGPLed code?" Yes.)
This is not technically true.
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 ...
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.
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.
<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... ;)
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
I personally think the written offer approach should never have been added, but ...
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.
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.
In any case, i'm a lawyer, they pay me to care about technicalities and argue about pointless stuff. What were you expecting?
No point arguing here. Not trusting Google to do the right thing these days anyways.
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 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)
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".
what disclaimer? That I am not their fanboy?
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.
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.
>> This is not technically true.
You sir, are, technically...
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
When I speak I speak only for myself.
But in any case as mentionned in other comments I believe the interesting code is more high level, or server side.
But you can do that after the infringement has taken place, as long as you do so within some period of time (60 days I think?) after you become aware of the infringement.
First, the consumer has the right for compensation (normally the price of the product). Second, the company will be forced to stop claiming that the product is under GPL. This then leads to either willing infringement (ie, removing the GPL notification once its been there), or continue misleading the consumer (Very large fines).
So far, I have not heard of any case like that. The closest was a case regarding contract law, which is tangent.
While that's generally how these outfits tend to work, Ars has built a pretty solid reputation for in-depth analysis and not having link-baity headlines.
Instead of letting this article die off, some people in HN were equally clueless and upvoted this article because of the misleading title. They upvoted either without reading the article, or read the article and did not have the technical ability to detect the bullshit.
This article should not be trending on the front page.
Even if it is legally required it is still interesting that it has been done for those who are following the device.
I'm guessing the code release contains drivers etc. specific to the device, which would be very useful for hacking.
(Note also that they explain that the entire stack's code wasn't released early in the article.)
Farewell, Ars Technica of old...
It's essentially taking their model with Android, which IMHO has been enormously successful, one step further. In two years time ZTE could be making 'The Reflector' a $100 version of Glass that has been been created from Glass' open designs. Of course their will be software modification as well, but theoretically just like Android, Google will remain at it's core.
I can see why Google will probably make more money by selling them for $1,500 a pop. But I think they could also make money by shear volume of increased search, maps, play store, etc. This seems to be inline with what they try to do now.
I hope that Google does not pull a Facebook and start forcing advertisements into everything. If that is the case it could be at the expense of the entire Glass platform which I think will be very cool.
There are a few shops that sell/release open source hardware, but I guarantee open sourcing Glass would make gigantic waves.
Imagine if IBM did not build the first PC with an open architecture, would it have caught on the way it did? Google should take the lead the open up the hardware and really make the glass affordable for everyone.
Develop in the open--reviews, patches, bugs, design discussions--everything should be visible. Let's not pretend that this is really what "open source" is about--it's about everyone making contributions, visibly, as they happen.
Anyone who takes this kernel and actually adds features is risking duplicating work or breaking future compatibility if Google ever decides to implement the same or otherwise conflicting features in different ways. This happens frequently with Android. Everyone is still stuck waiting on releases, and the fact that there is code involved is basically an afterthought.
1. Google wants to monetize the novel features of Glass
2. Google is bound by licenses for the technology, and is unable to open source certain bits
3. They will open source everything eventually, but decided to rush this bit for publicity reasons
4. Google is required to release the kernel code under the GPL
The big pay-off for google is that to use glass you need to use google. If the devices were 'open' then you would not need google to use glass and they'd be in a cue-cat situation.
Also, the Ars Technica article does not discuss what I suspect is the most interesting part of Google Glass: the code they run on their servers.
There, it's more or less the same story: they release commodity lower layers, but keep the more interesting upper layers to themselves, for the same reason: money.
The kernel will no doubt require binary blobs for OpenGL drivers (IIRC it's an OMAP CPU so this is likely) and because they decided they don't like glibc the OpenGL drivers on the device will be a pain to link against. I always find this annoying while hacking on Android devices.
On I side note - it is a sad world when the fact that device is unlocked is news instead of the norm.
In reference to: https://plus.google.com/118343182830485155505/posts/ERUJ8e1y...
Unless Google also open sources the Glass hardware, any "contributions" to their source code will be benefiting only Google and not the open source community.
Can we have the source code for Google Reader too, while we're at it?
If you want to run your own RSS client, starting with NewsBlur or Tiny Tiny RSS would get you much further than being able to see the Reader source.
I wrote a website that read RSS feeds for me years ago using that. It's really straight forward...