« GPL for dummies: mixing GPL and PROPRIETARY code | Main | Feedburner to Google: I'm crashing because of you »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e550a42259883400e551ed3e888834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Google to users: you're not the boss of me now!:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Matt Doar

I went back and read the whole thread for the fifth point, and it seems to be just another whining-about-licenses thread. At the end Chris gets irritated about being told he *needs* to do something by someone who could have probably have used a better turn of phrase.

So is Chris really as autocratic and erratic as you indicate, or is he just an easy target for some general Google-swiping?

~Matt

p.s. I don't know any of the individuals involved, nor am I employed by Google.

mtg

Same here, I don't know Chris nor do I know the other protagonists. Just happened to read various posts/threads and found it funny at times so I thought I would share my findings.

Chris, if you read this, the beer (or better the vine*) is on me. :)

update(*): I guess I meant 'wine' but hey, must have had the 'grapevine' in mind ...


Chris DiBona

I enjoy Beer and Wine, so you're covered :-) Find me at Oscon?

I am sometimes a little autocratic, and while it is easy to look like a nutjob when you bring in these various quotes, they're consistent with our various open source related missions.

For instance: We're fighting license proliferation and at the same time we want to preserve the history of open source software. Those two missions sometimes look inconsistent. Add in our support of other licenses via our funding activities and our projects like the summer of code, and it looks even more inconsistent.

Should we ban groups from the SoC that use licenses we feel are redundant? We don't think so. We think that would be bad for our other mission of creating new open source developers.

mtg

@chris:

I'm glad to learn SoC is open to all projects, including those with licenses not allowed on Google code.

But then, why make Google code less ... open then? I mean, why the difference?

Also I don't want to sound picky but Google doesn't 'create new open source developers' only project opportunities for FOSS developers to emerge ... and also to get noticed by Google recruiters? ;)

This being said SoC is a great initiative indeed.

Chris DiBona

Actually, we think that creating individual pools of software that cannot be shared amongst other licenses is less open, which is why we are against license proliferation.

SoC isn't much about recruiting, but more about creating more open source code and developers.

mtg

@chris:

So the argument is that of compatibility? (e.g. creating less 'pools') but then by the same token you could have only the X/MIT license ...

It raises another issue though: does it mean Google doesn't really trust the OSI?

What if OSI starts delivering say an "Open Choice Repository" label to those repositories offering all OSI-approved licenses; does Google code want to end-up next to Microsoft CodePlex which denies hosting to GPLv3 projects?


The comments to this entry are closed.