Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting
1–10 of 27 posts
Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting
#2It should have been called "Velvet Rope" :-)
Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting
#3Hopefully there is a Googler reading who can answer this: I'm curious why the README.md says
> Note: This is not an official Google product.
However the copyright is Google, and you must sign their CLA. That seems pretty official to me? Or is there some other implication to "official" beyond ownership?
Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting
#4Hopefully there is a Googler reading who can answer this: I'm curious why the README.md says > Note: This is not an official Google product. However the copyright is Google, and you must sign their CLA. That seems pretty official to me? Or is there some other implication to "official" beyond ownership?
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.
Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting
#5Hopefully there is a Googler reading who can answer this: I'm curious why the README.md says > Note: This is not an official Google product. However the copyright is Google, and you must sign their CLA. That seems pretty official to me? Or is there some other implication to "official" beyond ownership?
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.
Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting
#6Hopefully there is a Googler reading who can answer this: I'm curious why the README.md says > Note: This is not an official Google product. However the copyright is Google, and you must sign their CLA. That seems pretty official to me? Or is there some other implication to "official" beyond ownership?
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.
Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting
#7Offtopic but related: I want to like GRPC but I think Google is not working hard to make it quickly usable. Just try to perform a pip install in Visual Studio and obviously... it will not work. This is not the first time it happens, try to compile V8 (NodeJS is easy) or Chrome in Windows and it will be difficult even following the step by step instructions.
Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting
#8Offtopic but related: I want to like GRPC but I think Google is not working hard to make it quickly usable. Just try to perform a pip install in Visual Studio and obviously... it will not work. This is not the first time it happens, try to compile V8 (NodeJS is easy) or Chrome in Windows and it will be difficult even following the step by step instructions.
I have the opposite experience: The Go version of gRPC works like a charm, following the official instructions.
Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting
#9Hopefully there is a Googler reading who can answer this: I'm curious why the README.md says > Note: This is not an official Google product. However the copyright is Google, and you must sign their CLA. That seems pretty official to me? Or is there some other implication to "official" beyond ownership?
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.
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.
Re: Google Doorman: Global Distributed Client Side Rate Limiting
#10Hopefully there is a Googler reading who can answer this: I'm curious why the README.md says > Note: This is not an official Google product. However the copyright is Google, and you must sign their CLA. That seems pretty official to me? Or is there some other implication to "official" beyond ownership?
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.