This is the 9-line patch: https://github.com/pulseaudio/pulseaudio/commit/4e5051db7297d8171d148ef7d15c2e06ebeff0ce … This was something I debugged for a few hours, then fixed at 2AM. At home. I just wanted to send it and forget about it. No way I was going to spend more of my time getting a release for a 9-line patch to a GPL/LGPL codebase.
-
Show this thread
-
I guess they've realized this was a dumb policy, because under the current rules what I did was totally fine. Unfortunately, at the time, instead, what I got was a flamewar with
@cdibona where he accused me of putting both Google and Pulseaudio in jeopardy. For a 9-line bugfix.3 replies 18 retweets 197 likesShow this thread -
This proceeded with a bit of back and forth where I mentioned my bad experience with IARC. DiBona was having none of it, so instead he opted to *ban me from the IARC & open sourcing processes*. I was told to "go through employment legal" for any further issues.
1 reply 8 retweets 141 likesShow this thread -
It was at this point that I pulled up my Google employee contract, and looked *very* carefully at the IP ownership clause. As it turns out, I had missed a little detail. It was *obviously* modeled after CA labor code (even though I was in Ireland), but there was a difference.
2 replies 6 retweets 128 likesShow this thread -
CA labor code says, in pseudolegalese: You own THING you do on your own time without company equipment IF NOT ( THING relates to the company's business OR THING results from work you did for the company )
2 replies 14 retweets 131 likesShow this thread -
Since Google's business is basically everything technology, you do not own anything in practice. E.g. I was told that since Android has an audio server too, that the Pulseaudio patch was in scope and owned by Google.
1 reply 13 retweets 146 likesShow this thread -
However, my contract was worded differently: You own THING you do on your own time without company equipment IF ( NOT THING relates to the company's business OR NOT THING results from work you did for the company )
2 replies 15 retweets 152 likesShow this thread -
It is evident Google would do better to hire computer science graduates for lawyers, because whoever wrote that clearly didn't understand boolean logic and De Morgan's laws. This is wrong: ¬(𝑃 ∨ 𝑄) ⇎ (¬𝑃) ∨ (¬𝑄) The correct equivalence is: ¬(𝑃 ∨ 𝑄) ⇔ (¬𝑃) ∧ (¬𝑄)
1 reply 39 retweets 310 likesShow this thread -
And so, *as long as* whatever I did in my spare time and without using Google resources did not result from work I did for Google, it didn't matter one bit whether it "related to Google's business", which is the loophole they use to own everything you do.
2 replies 10 retweets 194 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @marcan42
When were you a Googler? My contract agreed with the other wording. I wonder if it got changed at some point in response to legal pressure -- IIRC, CA courts agree with this interpretation and not the stricter one.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
-
-
Replying to @marcan42
Huh, amusing coincidence. You left the same month I started.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.