Oh, interesting -- why do you think so?

I considered this for a while and I didn't find any downsides. It's open source; can be forked anytime by anyone.

I do this on my free time.

Software Freedom Conservancy's ContractPatch project has some exploration of this and other issues in employment contracts:

https://sfconservancy.org/contractpatch/

Have you though about using a pseudonym instead of your real identity for this? My contract even forbids me to contribute to OSS. You can’t advertise with any of your OSS work on your CV though.

> My contract even forbids me to contribute to OSS

What, in your spare time? That seems... restrictive

The standard Google employee contract contains this restriction. It's easier for them to institute a blanket ban on open source contributions (including in one's spare time) and then consider exceptions on a case-by-case basis. They have a dedicated internal committee that fields employee requests to work on open source projects.

Weird to even impose any restrictions at all outside of working hours. Can’t see how it’s any of my employers’ business?

How would they view working a second job? Does it matter in what field?

Depends on where. In many places this would be unenforceable and in some places illegal.

I'm sorry to read. Mine doesn't, I'm lucky.

flancian is a pseudonym but many people know my real name, it's no secret.

Why does Google own the copyright then?

Because Google owns the copyright to everything their employees make during their employment, whether or not they do it on company time or use company resources.

Exactly, thank you.

I understand there is often a reaction to seeing "copyright by Google"; but I researched it and it didn't seem to have any consequences of note.

The one thing I know of is that contributors to the project must sign a (one time only) CLA: https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual

I hope this isn't an issue for you; if it is, please reach out -- or consider forking! :)

https://anagora.org/node/open-source

Because Google has killed every social play they've ever tried tbh. I can't get invested.

This isn't the same as the killedbygoogle complaint. I know they kill a lot because they try a lot but social is Google's Moby Dick. They'll jump on it and fuck it up if it takes off.

Fair disclosure I know it's distributed and as such I've got this link up my sleeve

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/google-abandons-open-s...

I won't try to dispel this notion; I think your opinion is valid. I'll just say that in my experience Google is made up from a majority of people with good intentions :)

I'm interested in discussing how precisely Google could negatively affect the project -- I currently don't think that's possible, but I might be missing something.

Of course on the individual level Google hoovers up the smartest in the world! As a company though, social network shambles every time haha.

I don't know how they'd mess it up, gut feeling really. I do honestly wish you the best of luck outside of my cynicism!

The difference here is that this is not formally a Google project the way Wave, G+, etc were. This is just someone's hobby that incidentally Google owns the copyright to because tech companies treat engineers like glorified slaves when it comes to intellectual property.

Google kills social projects they run, but since they don't run this one, I don't see them interfering. Their ownership is just a technicality because of stone age IP law.

They don't take the copyright from you for a laugh.

That's far too overreaching. I wouldn't work somewhere that had ownership over my free time like this.

Google != Oracle