It's not a Google product. So no. (not that I'd agree with it not adhering to those roots currently. Just that this project has nothing to do with company policy)

"This is the official list of people who can contribute (and typically have contributed) code to the Upspin repository. The AUTHORS file lists the copyright holders; this file lists people. For example, Google employees are listed here but not in AUTHORS, because Google holds the copyright."

There is a difference between "a Google Product" and "Code to which Google holds copyright". Most importantly, the latter may include all code written by any Google Employee during their employment.

There is a difference but it is only interesting once you get really close like in a lawsuit IMO.

Google has copyright on the code and runs the infrastructure?

Very much a Google product to me. Paid or not. Official or not.

But it makes a philosophical difference to the involvement of the company, of the people working on it and also a practical difference, because products and non-products have very different launch-requirements. You are perceiving Google as far more monolithic, than it really is; the difference between a product and a non-product is how different employees of the company interact. To the outside world, that might or might not have any meaning. But I feel for the original comment that I replied to, it does.

From the docs:

> Terms of Service

> The Upspin website (the “Website”) is hosted by Google. By using and/or visiting the Website, you consent to be bound by Google’s general Terms of Service and Google’s general Privacy Policy.

Really a shame.