An example of the kind of "grassroots" lobbying Google does against the AGPL: https://github.com/osresearch/spispy/issues/32
@johns Not being familiar with names, it hard to say if this is someone using the weight of Google to push their personal views on licensing (I use my GNU affiliation to push my personal views on licensing too ;)), or if it's coming from Google. Or if the distinction is even relevant.
But the way this is phrased does indeed rub me the wrong way, moreso than advocating against the AGPL usually does, that is. Pretty slimy.
@mikegerwitz @johns I looked into this a little bit recently, and it seems like Google employees aren't allowed to contribute to AGPL-licensed projects even outside their direct work for the company.
Their policy roughly seems to be "any FOSS work you do even on your own time is done as Google and is subject to our policies. And we ban AGPL."
After finding out about that, any desire I might have previously had to apply for a job there went right down the drain.
@mikegerwitz @johns The full picture is a *bit* more involved than my previous statement, because there is a review process employees can go through to obtain copyright: https://opensource.google/docs/iarc/
By default though, Google owns the copyright, and releasing under a (non-AGPL) free software license seems like a much easier process for them.
@mikegerwitz Right, even if not explicitly directed, this is the effect of Google's policy.
