[See also: Previous 4 comments.]

[Below: Footnotes]

----

[0] https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual

[1] A document which I note has no associated date or revision information.

[2] But at least now I know why I kept seeing "Not a Contribution." in issue comments on GH, I guess.

[3] Or, you know, to at least not to be evi... oh.

[4] But, in actuality, even then.

[5] A situation I would posit exists between a corporate entity with a market cap of over $USD2.20[6] and over 80%[7] of typical individual contributors to FLOSS projects.

[6] Oh! Actually over $USD2.20 Trillion? Assuming my source is accurate[6.5].

[6.5] I'd encourage everyone to: independently verify my claims; consult your financial advisor; seek legal advice from your attorney licensed to operate in relevant jurisdictions; and, ask your doctor if any treatment plan, financial statement, legal claim, or, punctuation contained in this comment is accurate and/or right for you.

[7] Maybe even 99%[8].

[8] But as a sub-100x Developer I'm not privy to details of TC packages at the higher end of the SV scale, so might even be closer to 99.5% of typical individual contributors but wouldn't want to overstate my claims.

[9] A statement I'll readily admit I was extremely surprised to see in the Google CLA. You know, given I would've thought such a claim would leave the company open to some sort of legal liability or risk of agreement invalidation if it turned out the document didn't fully and completely protect a contributor (& I assume their heirs?) in every situation & jurisdiction in perpetuity. But as I may have mentioned I'm not a lawyer and definitely not qualified or licensed to practice law in whatever jurisdiction applies in this situation, so... *shrug*

[10] The fact the CLA doesn't seem to state anywhere from what nor how the contributor is protected; nor, for that matter, from what, if anything, they will not be protected[11]. Which to me seems to make it difficult for any contributor (or their legal counsel) to evaluate whether signing the agreement is a good idea.

[11] The best I could come up with is maybe Google's reasoning is that by "requiring" contributors to interact with their employer they will be "protected" from unintentionally contributing something to which only their employer actually has the rights. But that seems pretty weak. And, as I say, I can only make a guess because Google doesn't actually specify any of it anywhere.

[12] Chorus: sotto voce "Because let's be honest here, is there even a single person at Google who is prepared to swear under oath that there is data to support the idea that there is even a simple majority of people who have signed the CLA that read it, understood it, obtained legal advice about it and are thus in a position to provide 'informed consent' by even the low standard of the law let alone morality?"

[13] Well, you know, clearly with the exception of global copyright infringement (oh, sorry, "training material hoovering") without such minimal courtesy as attribution because while apparently individuals have to abide by copyright law and wait until material enters the public domain after a term of close enough to one hundred years or more after publishing--a term demanded by multi-billion dollar corporations--apparently other multi-billion-dollar are too important to have to wait or brib... lobby for law change or license material or *gasp* pay for the creation of new works.

I'm not that naive and stupid even as a sub-100x Developer.

[14] [redacted]

[15] This joke is patented.

[16] Wait, what if I actually am a lawyer, licensed to practice law in some relevant jurisdiction? That seems like it would be super awkward.