The thing people don't understand is that copyright is really important to me, Google and open source. We have to be *exceptionally* clear who owns what if open source is going to work. Putting your head in the sand doesn't help anyone, and actively hurts open source.https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1207234468928356352 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @cdibona
It's easy to miss the fact that open source only works because *and to the extent that* copyright law works. Having written & negotiated such clauses on behalf of employers I agree they can be made clumsy and overreaching, but if the intention is practical clarity they do help.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Adding
@marcan42 [I don't really know Twitter etiquette, so I'm probably doing a group reply in a broken and goofy way, soz]1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Oh, I'm sure Twitter threading won't screw it up in any way, shape or form. (Yes, that was sarcasm)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
True dat
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Open source indeed only works to the extent that copyright works, and if you follow my past work closely you'd know I deeply care about copyright too. But when your rights have been taken by an overreaching employment contract, and the corporate processes don't work, what then?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
There's a lot to unpack here that , well, just isn't my business to do so (see my previous post about talking about ex-employees) I'd suggest you read our docs if you're interested in how Google handles things now 8 years later. Past that, this isn't productive.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
I know things have improved (the situation that I described is now blanket approved without request necessary, as I mentioned). Unfortunately, that wasn't the case when I was there.
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.