It works like this. Google has an "open source office". When you open source code at Google, it's either a product, or it isn't. Even if it's not a product (which has its own extra set of launch procedures), it's possible to open source it. It's still a Google-owned thing, but not a "product". Google ownership does not necessarily mean it's a product, but it still requires the copyright stamp and the CLA.

If it's easier, just drop the word "official". It's not a Google product- IE, a saleable or free service that google provides to customers- but rather just a thing Google put out in the world, subject to the rules that Google applies.

This is a project whose author is a Googler thus Google has the copyright and all the CLA stuff. However Google is not directly involved in the project, in the sense of having employees solely work on the project and have an OKR on this project, or roadmap whatsoever.

Think about this: someone work for Google wrote a software and Google is kind enough to open source it.

Disclaimer: I work for Google but my interpretation could be wrong.

Does Google also own code that you write in your spare time at home?

Usually (close to) universal answer is something like is: "If you've used any employing entity resources, even incidentally, your employing entity owns it, especially if the project is directly related to the business"

Some places will attempt to assert more ownership and some will not.

They pretend to, as would many companies if asked. I don't know how that would hold in court though. They also, for instance, pretend it's illegal to discuss your salary while the opposite seams to be true, so...

That is because Google claims copyright on everything you create while you work there, even if you create it in your garage in your free time. You baked some cookies for your daughters birthday party? Sorry, can't distribute them for free, consumers of those must sign a CLA (Consumer License Agreement) and Google retains copyright on your recipe.

This is false. Source: I am a Googler who has released open source code, written in my own time, using my own hardware/software.

Here's how it works (in California, anyway):

Google reserves the right to review open source projects to determine whether there is overlap with a current or potential Google business. This is done by submitting a form that describes one's project and then waiting a while for a decision. If the decision is "yes", then you are free to work on your project with your own time/resources, and publish it under your own copyright.

Google being Google, almost anything could be construed as overlapping with Google business interests. However, my anecdata suggests that Google is quite liberal in this regard: I had no problems myself, and know a few others who also had no problems.

In this case (i.e. this Hacker News story), I'm guessing that we're talking about something different. I suspect that the project in question was written using Google time and resources, and it is IMO appropriate for Google to own the copyright.

Question: Does this also apply to Google employees at Google Hamburg, and, if yes, how far? Because, as far as I know, German law directly prohibits such contracts.

I can't answer your question, because I don't know the answer.

However, I would recommend against relying on wereHamster's apparent mis-information... unless Google's policies are different in the jurisdiction that wereHamster is familiar with, in which case I apologize.

I think wereHamster’s text was satire, but the idea was repeated by many others: Anything related to your job you do is owned by Google.

You can’t contribute to ejabberd when you work on Hangouts.

> You can’t contribute to ejabberd when you work on Hangouts.

As a Googler I suspect you could, you'd just need permission (possibly per patch).

Googlers contribute to lots of open source projects. Google itself is fairly liberal in terms of what it's willing to share outside. Exceptions tend to be product specific code (you probably couldn't contribute the Hangouts UI and front-end code), particular technologies that are distinct competitive advantages (search ranking, etc.), or things that are Google specific (I work on Google Compute Engine -- there's a fair amount of code that is specific to Google's infrastructure).

What does it tell us if people don't recognise that as satire? Is it so close to reality to think that Google could claim rights on our cookie recipes?

And if you really have to ask if such a clause applies to you, you haven't properly read your contract and/or you don't know your rights. People, please educate yourselves, don't let large corporations, even if they claim not to be evil, violate your rights.

> And if you really have to ask if such a clause applies to you, you haven't properly read your contract and/or you don't know your rights.

I’m not working at Google, but I’m a compsci student in Germany, and obviously interested in the situation in the job market.

> What does it tell us if people don't recognise that as satire? Is it so close to reality to think that Google could claim rights on our cookie recipes?

It’s certainly possible that some might expect that – from the standpoint of someone who only heard of German law, for example, a large part of US employment laws would sound just as crazy as being able to have the copyright of your employee’s cookie recipes.