Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

opensource.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 334 posts

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#101

Post by ceras »

cute_boi wrote: post #75

Google and Opensource a joke of century. Chrome -> Make chromium opensource but add spyware that phones home on every second and with new manifest v3 make sure extensions like ublock origin don't work Andriod -> Make tip of iceberg opensource but force every vendor to use Service and lock down whole ecosystem around it. And make sure there is no way to block ads on youtube for andriod. Fuchsia -> Initial Stage make p…

I don't know, I think there's a couple examples of these open source projects gaining non-Google traction:

- The new Edge, Opera, and Brave are based on Chromium

- China has a huge ecosystem of non-Google Android devices

Google does exert strong control of their open source code, and Google is clearly the prime beneficiary of them, but the external world has still leveraged these projects nonetheless

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#102

Post by PragmaticPulp »

mmastrac wrote: post #4

I've heard Fuchsia referred to as a "principal engineer retention project" at Google. I'd be curious to know if others have heard the same.

> I've heard Fuchsia referred to as a "principal engineer retention project" at Google.

No rational company is going to create useless projects just to retain expensive engineers. What's the point in retaining engineers if you're just going to pay them to work on something without expected ROI?

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#103

Post by ori_b »

hollerith wrote: post #19
brandmeyer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux itself has never been a GNU project and has never required copyright assignment. It is the combination of features (retain ownership and GPL) together that has enabled collaboration in Linux.

Are you saying that collaboration on Gnu Compiler Collection, binutils, bash, bison, CLISP, coreutils, etc, has been inhibited by the requirement for copyright assignment to the FSF?

To a large degree, yes. I have definitely not bothered sending patches to these projects because I can't be bothered with copyright assignment.

And that's with trust that the FSFs goals on copyright align with mine.

I don't trust Google to do what I want with my assigned copyright.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#104

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

hollerith wrote: post #15
brandmeyer wrote: post #10

Looks like you still cannot contribute without granting copyright ownership to Google. In turn, GOOG licenses it out under a BSD (or BSD-like) license. This is a big difference relative to Linux, and its part of why Linux works so well as a collaboration between competitors. The GPL's copyleft acts as a joint development agreement between equals. IMO, Fuchsia's model only works well for integration partners that are…

ADDED. Looks like this comment and its replies have no relevance to the Fuchsia project: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25348935 You used to not be able to contribute to most GNU projects (maybe you still can't) without assigning copyright ownership to the FSF. I don't see what practical difference the assignment to Google will make. Without using the words "equality", "between equals" and "sharecropper", can y…

> You used to not be able to contribute to most GNU projects (maybe you still can't) without assigning copyright ownership to the FSF.

Even were that true today, the difference is that I basically trust the FSF.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#105

Post by andrewprock »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #22
hollerith wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ADDED. Looks like this comment and its replies have no relevance to the Fuchsia project: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25348935 You used to not be able to contribute to most GNU projects (maybe you still can't) without assigning copyright ownership to the FSF. I don't see what practical difference the assignment to Google will make. Without using the words "equality", "between equals" and "sharecropper", can y…

If I want to distribute derivative works of the Linux kernel, I need to release those works to all. My competitors can take advantage of this, but in the end they are bound by similar rules. This produces a feedback loop in which contributions back may be used by everyone under pretty much equal terms. If you assign your copyright to Google, they may make use of those changes and integrate them into further developme…

I think there is a lesson in here somewhere about the evolution of Linux as a platform, versus the evolution of Android as a platform.

In particular, it seems that the license terms of Linux caused Android to become "as open as it needs to be, and no more open".

I expect that Fucshia will take the same path as Android, as opposed to the path of core Linux.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#106

Post by garaetjjte »

hortense wrote: post #90

Anyone else bothered by the black banner saying "Google is committed to advancing racial equity for Black communities" in technical documentation ( https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/contribute/roadmap ) ? This is simply an advertisement for Google, and just like any other advertisement it has nothing to do in technical documentation, especially in a project where they want other companies to contribute.

I didn't even notice it. My brain filtered it out as some another ad..

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#107

Post by ponker »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #102
mmastrac wrote: post #4

I've heard Fuchsia referred to as a "principal engineer retention project" at Google. I'd be curious to know if others have heard the same.

> I've heard Fuchsia referred to as a "principal engineer retention project" at Google. No rational company is going to create useless projects just to retain expensive engineers. What's the point in retaining engineers if you're just going to pay them to work on something without expected ROI?

So they are available when you have a project to ramp up quickly, and so they don’t work at a competitor.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#108

Post by snazz »

flotzam wrote: post #70

If contributing to your project requires much more than git commit --signoff — in Fuchsia's case, a full-on Google Account! — this will exclude many pseudonymous developers who conceive of things such as privacy in terms of capabilities (not pinky promises). Which seems relevant for a security-focused OS.

I'm guessing that most of these pseudonymous developers—of which there can't possibly be too many—would distrust Google enough not to contribute even if it were easier to do so without a Google Account.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#110

Post by outworlder »

> Fuchsia is a long-term project to create a general-purpose, open source operating system

Why do we need this? We have Linux. It works. It is open-source, general purpose. It needs more support to become more mainstream (like what Valve has done with Proton).

Don't like Linux? Start with one of the BSDs. Heck, start with Haiku. Any of these projects are lightyears ahead of anything that's just starting.

The most likely explanation is that _we_ don't need this, but Google does, for some strategic purpose. It must be for some pretty compelling use-case, because we know how happy they are to kill projects.

Post reply on HN