I work for Google now on an open source project, and have worked on open source language projects for them before.
This is just not how things happen. At all.
There's a lot of fear in our post about things that _could_ happen, but haven't actually happened in Google's history, or aren't unique to corporate sponsorship.
> 1. I wouldn't be able to refuse if they told me to add tracking, analytics, AI "learning", or lock-in mechanisms.
Google just doesn't do this with OSS projects. I've never seen on mine, or heard about it in others, or heard news of problems. I did work near a CLI that sent some usage analytics back (so they could see crash reports, etc) and some people complained, and it was removed. It was never nefarious and the idea that Google is trying to make better ad profiles or somesuch via OSS projects is frankly ludicrous.
> 2. If at any point they thought that Vale competed with Golang, they would shut it down. It doesn't matter that they're completely different (Vale doesn't even have a GC); if any person in the chain of command even had the _perception_ that it did, Vale would die.
> 3. If at any point they wanted the headcount for other things, they would shut it down.
How is Google stopping funding a OSS project any worse than Google never funding it in the first place? They can't "shut down" the project any more after paying you to work on it than before paying you to work on it. If you want to work on it for free, just do so.
Yes, you _might_ have to fork the official repo if it got moved to under Google's GitHub orgs, but contrary to your fears, Google has a good track record of handing off OSS projects they don't want to maintain. There's a whole OSS office to help with this and an official process for transferring ownership and copyrights.
You're also allowed to work on non-Google OSS projects for 20% if it fits in the spirit and goals of 20% time, so if Vale is even vaguely in-line with Google work and goals, you could have just... worked on it. Did you actually talk to anyone at Google about this?
I can't imagine that there would be a reason to close it to work on it at Google. That would be a very unusual situation.
> This isn't just a side project for me.
Then you probably made the right decision to work on it full time, but only as an alternative to working on it part time. If Google would have paid you to work on it full time, there really isn't any risk. If they ever tell you to work on something else, you can still quit.
Android has a lot of open source parts to it, but nearly all users are running a commercial version and it's not managed as an open source project, so I don't think it counts.
Yes, and could damage the product/brand in the process. mysql, openoffice, and oracle come to mind. It is survivable but often not a win in the long term for the original author. Seems like a personal decision however.
This is just not how things happen. At all.
There's a lot of fear in our post about things that _could_ happen, but haven't actually happened in Google's history, or aren't unique to corporate sponsorship.
> 1. I wouldn't be able to refuse if they told me to add tracking, analytics, AI "learning", or lock-in mechanisms.
Google just doesn't do this with OSS projects. I've never seen on mine, or heard about it in others, or heard news of problems. I did work near a CLI that sent some usage analytics back (so they could see crash reports, etc) and some people complained, and it was removed. It was never nefarious and the idea that Google is trying to make better ad profiles or somesuch via OSS projects is frankly ludicrous.
> 2. If at any point they thought that Vale competed with Golang, they would shut it down. It doesn't matter that they're completely different (Vale doesn't even have a GC); if any person in the chain of command even had the _perception_ that it did, Vale would die. > 3. If at any point they wanted the headcount for other things, they would shut it down.
How is Google stopping funding a OSS project any worse than Google never funding it in the first place? They can't "shut down" the project any more after paying you to work on it than before paying you to work on it. If you want to work on it for free, just do so.
Yes, you _might_ have to fork the official repo if it got moved to under Google's GitHub orgs, but contrary to your fears, Google has a good track record of handing off OSS projects they don't want to maintain. There's a whole OSS office to help with this and an official process for transferring ownership and copyrights.
You're also allowed to work on non-Google OSS projects for 20% if it fits in the spirit and goals of 20% time, so if Vale is even vaguely in-line with Google work and goals, you could have just... worked on it. Did you actually talk to anyone at Google about this?