Google Launches Google Code

ibjhb writes "Google is at it again and has launched Google Code. It appears to be "Google's place for Open Source software". " Can't say that I'm surprised that our old friend (and former Slashdot Author) Chris DiBona is working on this one. They have links to several open source projects, as well as to Google API information.

Nice

[M.C. Hampster]

It looks like rather than try to reinvent the wheel, they are utilizing SourceForge for hosting their code. It's nice to see that they aren't suffering from "Not Invented Here" syndrome.

code.google.com FAQ

[e03179]

Google Code FAQ: http://code.google.com/faq.html/ [google.com]

Code.google.com is our site for external developers interested in Google-related development. It's where we'll publish free source code and lists of our API services. A lot of people worked together to both prepare source code for release and prepare code.google.com for launch and ongoing maintenance. We really care about free and open source software (F/OSS) at Google, and this site is one aspect of that affection.

Read the rest of the FAQ: http://code.google.com/faq.html/ [google.com]

Sourceforge

[aftk2]

When I first read the article blurb, I thought it meant Google was announcing some sort of source code repository, like SourceForge. Instead, it's a listing of their various open source projects.

That's cool, certainly, but nothing terribly exciting. Isn't this stuff that's already been floating around on the Google website? Or is this a quick-and-dirty attempt to match developer.yahoo.com [yahoo.com], which still looks to be more capable.

Re:code.google.com FAQ

[Infinityis]

Better link... http://code.google.com/faq.html [google.com]

Re:Google and 20% time

[Dracolytch]

I'm not sure about the first question, but the answer to the second question is easy: Google.

They're paying you to develop ideas, they may be your ideas, but you're using company time and resources to create them (ie: you're being paid to generate the ideas AND they're financing the initial development effort), so the ideas are their property.

I'm sure someone can come up with some philosophical way around this, but if it ever went to court, the case would prolly be over pretty quick.

~D

Re:the editor Chris?

[stupidfoo]

No, that was Michael Sims [sethf.com] who seems to be just a total douche bag wherever he goes (read the link for more info on his immature tirade at censorware.org).

Re:Google and 20% time

[digidave]

"Does this 20% time come out of the normal 40hr/week thing (and for that matter, do these engineers work 40/week or are they doing 100/week and get 20% time out of that)?"

It's one day a week, so that's 20% of working days, not hours.

Re:Bad title

[Dolda2000]

Are you referring to adding "site:sourceforge.net" to your search terms, like this [google.com]?

Re:Google and 20% time

[arkanes]

As I understand it, it's one day a week and Google owns the IP. It's basically like free play in kindergarden.

Re:Good Show!

[SpiffyMarc]

damn that's really going to p*ss Microsoft off - I'd like to see them match this idea.

Microsoft has several open source projects on SourceForge, and in the past has hosted sites like GotDotNet that allowed users to share libraries with one another. Microsoft developers would also post libraries they had written and allow other developers to see and use the code.

Re:Good to see

[LiquidCoooled]

Slash mentioned it earlier on today here [slashdot.org]

here [comcast.net] is a working mirror.

And theres also a zip available for your local running pleasure here [mirwin.net]

Plenty of people supplied mirrors and online copies inside the comments of the article.

Re:Bad title

[The boojum]

Don't forget that there's already Google Linux [google.com] and Google BSD [google.com]. Not quite what you're asking for, but a little closer.

And Google Labs has Google Personalized Search [google.com] where you can flag open source as a topic of interest.

Re:Interesting observation.

[chrisd]

That's because I want to see how things go in all the projects. Believe me when I tell you that it's not the Chris DiBona show. No one would watch... Chris DiBona

Re:the editor Chris?

[Anonymous Coward]

> They should of just hired some muscle for a couple hundred bucks to kick the shit out of him.

No, they should have sued him. Even a small claims judge can issue an injunction, and if he violated it, he'd have gone to jail.

Re:Good Show!

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has several "open source" projects on SourceForge,

Oh, sure I am aware of these projects although you should really take a good look at the licensing arrangements on these things.... Dont expect to be porting any of these applications to linux, dont for a moment think you have any rights to do anything with the source code to call your own. These project only just qualify as being Open Source - I prefer not to dilute the term "Open Source" call them by their proper name "Shared Source"

Uh Oh, Another DiBona Project

[Jack Auf]

Why is it that people think this guy is great? He typically does NOT do a good or even acceptable job on anything he manages.

Chris DiBona is *the* guy that single-handedly killed themes.org.

For those of you who have not been around long enough to remember themes.org it was a wonderful, one-stop-shop for themes for everything. Until Chris took over that is, and then it went into a year and a half long dormant period where no updates were allowed by themers, only to eventually be folded into freshmeat when it was apparent that Chris was never going to deliver.

How the hell did he ever get hired by Google?

Don't spread convoluted simplifications.

[fingerfucker]

An engineer wanted something to mark pages in choir books at church. He found an adhesive that they'd previously dismissed as too weak to be useful, diluted it further, and now we don't have to paint our monitors and walls . . .

First of all, he was NOT an engineer, but a scientist. Second of all, the 3M inventor of the Post-It note, Dr. Spence Silver, was NOT looking for a way to mark pages at churg, but rather "looking for ways to improve the acrylate adhesives that 3M uses in many of its tapes". Spencer walked around for 5 years with it an wasn't able to find an application for it.

It was Art Fry, again NOT an engineer, but a new product development researcher, who found an application for it. And only then the whole church bookmark idea came into the picutre.

Here [3m.com] is a full article.

Just because your point was that 3M had a similar approach to empowering employees to innovate, that doesn't give you the right to oversimplify and spread convoluted versions of history.