Underexposed

Google's Photostream application is for viewing Flickr photos on Android phones.

(Credit: Google)

Google released on Thursday a new sample application called Photostream that will let phones running its Android phone operating system view photos stored at Yahoo's Flickr photo-sharing site.

Although Photostream is intended to be a tool to illustrate the use of various Android features, it also looks like a potentially useful application for when the phones start shipping later this year. The open-source program lets people browse a particular user's photos, in groups or individually, and create separate shortcuts to different Flickr accounts, according to a description at the Android developers blog.

Google is trying to attract developers to Android so the project has a rich set of applications. Part of the promise of the effort is to build an "open" foundation, not unlike personal computers, where people can install new software.

Users will be able to find new applications at the Android Market, though that online service likely will launch only with free applications, so developers hoping to profit from the site will probably have to wait.

Google is also moving technology from its Chrome browser to Android.

Google wants to help you put a name to that face.

With a face recognition feature set to launch at noon PDT Tuesday, Google's Picasa Web Albums will help users label their photos with the names of subjects. That and other changes to the photo-sharing site are joined by a new beta version of the accompanying Picasa 3.0 photo-editing software.

The "name tag" feature presents users with collections of photos with what it judges to be the same person, then lets them click a button to affix a name. Once photographic subjects are named, users can browse an album of that individual on the fly.

The Picasa Web Albums name tag feature groups like faces together to let users tag them with names a batch at a time (click to enlarge).

(Credit: Google)

"Once you've started naming people, we'll start suggesting names for you based on similarity," said Mike Horowitz, Google's Picasa product manager. "The process of naming people is really addictive and tremendously fun."

Having tried the new service on dozens of photos, I wouldn't go that far. But it is a major advance in what I believe is a very important area, photo metadata.

Tagging is a powerful way to sort digital photographs. Photo albums are useful, but with rich tagging, people also can slice and dice their photo collection to show particular people, activities, or locations. Even with face recognition technology or other computer processing, the textual tags in photos are a far more reliable way for computers to understand image content.

And tags become even more powerful as photos are assembled into publicly accessible collections such as those at Yahoo's Flickr, Picasa, or Fox Interactive's Photobucket.

Eat your vegetables, exercise regularly, tag your photos
The problem with tagging is that it's a chore, so most people don't bother. But Picasa's name tag feature automates the process enough--and provides enough reason to use it--that I believe many users will take the tagging plunge.

It took me less than 15 minutes to tag close to 200 faces in a set of more than 100 photos, and that included some start-up time such as figuring out how the system worked, establishing names for various common subjects, and correcting a few errors. The most impressive moments are when Picasa presents a large array of photos with the same face, and you can label them all with a single click.

Picasa editing software now lets users export movies with musical soundtrack to a file or YouTube (click to enlarge).

(Credit: Google)

I speak here from experience. I do tag my own photos--for example the 700 I took on a weeklong backpacking trip earlier this month--and something like Google's facial recognition assisting would have dramatically sped the process. It wouldn't help with other tags such as "swimming," "waterfall," or "Sierra tiger lily," but let's face it--people are the central feature in most people's photos.

Overall, Google's Picasa moves show that despite a long period of near-dormancy, Google still evidently is committed to the photography site and software.

However, Picasa overall still feels like a staid place to store photos, share them with friends, and maybe order prints. It doesn't match the vibrant community of Yahoo's Flickr. And though Flickr also has been slow to change, Yahoo has at least been nudging it in the right direction with additions such as online editing.

Picasa Web Albums' most conspicuously erroneous identification of a face, actually the spokes on my bicycle's front wheel.

(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET News)

Face recognition blemishes
Picasa's name tags are helpful but imperfect. The feature failed to find faces in several photos where I thought the faces were reasonably obvious. It also thought my bicycle wheel's spokes and wife's ear were faces. One excusable error: it thought a mask in a mural was a face, though for some reason it didn't bother with a couple of real humans in the same mural.

"Our face-matching technology works best when a person is looking at the camera," Horowitz said. "There are a variety of factors that may limit our success in matching faces, including profile views and challenging lighting conditions like shadows."

The most annoying error was that during the initial period when I was adding names to the system, it somehow came up with three separate versions of me and two versions of my son, despite the fact that I entered the same name and e-mail address. I fixed it by telling Picasa my alter egos were erroneously labeled, at which point they re-entered the labeling pool and I assigned them to the remaining identity. Too bad I didn't notice the "merge" option until later.

Picasa Web Albums asked me to identify this face it found--actually a mask in a mural (click to enlarge).

(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET News)

Knowing the privacy implications of face recognition, Google is proceeding somewhat cautiously. Picasa users must specifically enable the name tag feature, and default name tags aren't shared publicly. Picasa users may only tag photos in their own account.

With the "name tag" feature, which users must specifically enable, Picasa presents groups of images sharing the same face. Users can label them with a person's name. Eventually users can click a tag to find shots of a particular subject in their photo collections,

The face recognition technology came to Google via its 2006 acquisition of Neven Vision, Horowitz said.

There are other changes coming to Picasa Web Albums (though a change to Google Photos isn't one of them, at least right now). One is an "explore" view that lets people browse the total collection of public Picasa photos. It lets people browse by popular tags, location, and peer at recent uploads. Another is the ability to e-mail photos to the service.

Picasa 3 beta
Google also plans to release a beta version of the Picasa 3 image-editing. It works on Windows, though a Google Labs version has been transmogrified to work on Linux via the Wine software layer. Horowitz wouldn't confirm whether a Mac OS X version is anything more than an idea: "Macs are important to us," he said. "We're always looking for new ways making sure our users are happy, so it's something we're looking at."

The new Picasa software brings several changes:

• A movie maker mode lets people combine photos with music to export movie versions of galleries to watch on a PC or upload to YouTube.

• A new retouch brush lets people edit out skin blemishes and other trouble spots. And the tool can automatically fix red-eye problems caused by flash photography.

A collage mode in Picasa lets users create poster-size collections, sizing and placing each snapshot. (Click to enlarge.)

(Credit: Google)

• A new collage mode lets users compile many photos into one composite image. This time, users get precise control over image placement for example by moving, rotating, and resizing photos, and the software can produce a high-resolution composite for poster-size prints.

• A photo viewer for quick slideshows, an option that during installation politely asks to own the file associations for JPEG, TIFF, raw images from higher-end cameras, and some other formats. The slideshow software can view PNG files, which is handy, but the editing software still can't, which is a significant limitation for me.

• Online synchronization. If photos have been uploaded from Picasa to the Web site, they can be edited later and the changes, including tags, are synchronized to the Web site. This is very handy since you might want to get images up quickly to share with friends then edit them later. Unfortunately, changes on the Web site aren't mirrored back to the PC, so all those name tags will stay put in the cloud for now.

The Dear Adobe site lets people vent about Adobe products and vote about the gripes.

(Credit: Dear Adobe)

A lot of people use Adobe Systems software, and apparently a lot of them feel the need to vent.

Web designer Erik Frick created the Dear Adobe site where users can enter gripes and vote for or against others' gripes. "It started from a conversation between Adam (Meisel) and myself complaining about Photoshop. Both of us being Web design nerds, we figured, 'Why not create a forum for people to vent? Who knows, maybe Adobe will listen,'" he said Tuesday on the site's inaugural blog posting.

Sure enough. Photoshop Principal Product Manager John Nack said the site generated more than 30 e-mails within Adobe in the first two days, and Nack himself responded to a few gripes at the site.

"Just because it would be unprofessional of me or others to rant about this or that aspect of the company in public, don't for a second think it's not happening behind closed doors," Nack said, acknowledging complaints about Creative Suite 3's installation and update software.

Frick created a top 50 gripes list. It's possible the results are skewed to early gripes, since it appears the site presents random gripes for readers to vote on and early gripes have had more exposure. Even so, it's still illuminating to see a mass venting of the spleen: some want Adobe to slow down and cut the bloat, others to speed up with new features. One gets sympathy for Adobe as well as for its customers.

On the overall list:

Gripe 126: "Lens flare is played. Let it go."

Gripe 675: "Linux users luvs u. We can has Adobe applications and a currents Flash versions? Kthanxbai."

Gripe 6: "You kindly turn off the highlight on text when choosing a color for it, but not when choosing a different weight. Would you kindly do this, or kindly jump off a cliff? "

Gripe 366: "please don't copy Microsoft's naming and bundling conventions. I want CS3 not CS3 pro, CS3 pro advantage, CS3 pro plus, CS3 no frills, CS3 pro max, CS3 pro extra pro max... "

(Credit: Dear Adobe)

Microsoft and Nikon have signed a cross-licensing deal that gives each company access to the other's patents.

Detailed terms of the Nikon deal weren't disclosed, but the companies said Nikon is compensating Microsoft through the alliance.

Nikon and Microsoft didn't indicate what new products and features would be enabled through the patent agreement, but they did point to existing cooperative efforts involving wireless cameras and raw image formats.

Raw images are taken directly from a camera's image sensor with little or no in-camera processing; the formats more detailed and flexible than JPEG, but they're also proprietary and specific to each camera model, and they require processing with software to become useful to most consumers. Windows Vista has the ability to display raw images as long as a camera maker supplies the necessary encoding and decoding software plug-in, called a codec.

My coworker Lori Grunin already covered Canon's announcement of its $1,400 mid-range EOS 50D SLR, but as somebody who's in the market for a new SLR, I thought I'd weigh in with some thoughts of my own. I'm glad Canon is investing where perhaps it counts most: the sensor. If the reviews look good, this will be the first time I've really been tempted to upgrade from my well-used Canon Rebel XT.

Canon's EOS 50D will ship in October for $1,399, not including a lens. Also shown here is the new EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS zoom lens.

(Credit: Canon)

When it ships in October, the 50D will sport a 15.1 megapixel sensor, up from 10.1 megapixels in the current 40D. The increase in megapixels is nice for the poster-print and microstock-sales crowds, but what's most notable is the increase of the top ISO from 3,200 to 12,800.

That means Canon has done some serious work to cut down on the noise levels inside the sensor, which bodes well for image quality not just at the new extremes but also at more ordinary sensitivity settings. ISO 3,200, for example, is now part of the ordinary range, not the extended range that must be manually enabled before it's available. Canon hit some sweet spots in sensor design, for example with its earlier 20D and the full-frame 5D, and the 50D holds the potential of being another model that balances megapixels with low noise and accurate color.

Canon attributes the advance to "newly designed gapless microlenses over each pixel to reduce noise." Microlenses gather light for the light-sensitive part of the image sensor, compensating for surface area occupied by other electronics. Gapless microlenses presumably stretch across the entire pixel width. Perhaps this technology will also help out whatever model will succeed Canon's 5D, my other obvious upgrade path but one that likely would require spending twice the price for the camera body and that would require me to shell out another few hundred dollars for a new wide-angle lens to support the full-frame sensor size.

Fending off Nikon
Higher sensitivity is important for Canon. It's been losing market share to Nikon, which has pushed high sensitivity as an advantage, though with lower megapixel counts. The full-frame sensors on Nikon's D3 and D700 can reach ISO 25,600, though reaching that level was made easier through a sensor design that emphasizes a smaller number of larger pixels.

Is Hasselblad feeling some pressure from the more plebian realm of 35mm SLR cameras?

That's the thought I had when I got a promotional e-mail from the high-end camera maker offering a 31-megapixel H3D-II and an 80mm lens for $17,995--a lower price, the company is eager to note. The tagline of the promotion: "If you thought you couldn't afford a Hasselblad, think again."

Hasselblad's H3DII-31 medium-format camera now can be purchased for $17,995 with an 80mm lens.

(Credit: Hasselblad)

Those of you who aren't photographers for Vogue advertisers or astronauts taking snapshots of the moon might not be familiar with the Hasselblad name, but it's a prestigious brand that makes "medium format" cameras. However, like every camera maker, it's navigating choppy waters during the transition from film to digital photography.

For photography, bigger can be better. The larger film area provided by medium-format cameras can outdo the smaller frame size of 35mm film in detail, and some of those advantages carry over to digital sensors.

But with digital, the math is unforgiving: it's not much more expensive to make a large frame of film, but it's a lot more expensive to make a large digital image sensor. Medium-format digital camera technology from Hasselblad, Mamiya, Phase One, and others are costly, and indeed, even the 35mm format is confined to a small, higher-end segment of the SLR business as camera makers moved to sensors that are roughly two-thirds the size.

The H3D-II uses a sensor that's 44x33mm, significantly larger than the 36x24mm of 35mm film but not as large as the 50-megapixel 48x36mm sensor Kodak builds for Hasselblad's top-end camera.

Canon, the leading seller of 35mm SLRs, has its eye on the medium-format market. Its $8,000 top-end 21-megapixel EOS-1Ds Mark III is specifically geared for studio photographers, for example. Sony has committed to full-frame 35mm digital SLRs, with a 24-megapixel model planned for later this year, and Nikon is rumored to have its own high-resolution full-frame rival in the works. (I should have been clearer that I meant a high-resolution Nikon alternative to the EOS-1Ds Mark III; Nikon has offered a lower-resolution though high-sensitivity full-frame model since introducing the D3 in 2007.)

Hasselblad is aware of the threat: "For a little more than high-end 35mm solutions and much less than many competing medium format solutions, you too can begin using the world's most advanced digital camera system," the company said.

With Adobe Systems' release of version 2 of its Photoshop Lightroom on Monday night, the company no doubt hopes customers will be drawn by a number of new features in the software for sorting, cataloging, and editing photos.

But the company believes an external factor will also help the software: the booming sales of high-end SLR cameras. These high-end models are helping usher in many of digital photography's biggest changes, and Adobe is trying to intercept the trend with Lightroom.

From 2007 to 2008, digital SLR shipments increased a dramatic 41 percent to 7.5 million units, according to market researcher IDC. And though plenty of those cameras went to gadget-happy doctors or to snapshooters who won't exploit the cameras' full features, plenty of others went to the photography enthusiasts at whom Lightroom is aimed.

Lightroom 2.0 is geared for editing flexible but complicated 'raw' images taken directly from higher-end cameras' image sensors. (Click image to enlarge.)

(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET News)

"Prices are coming down, so more people with entry-level SLRs are experimenting," said Tom Hogarty, the Adobe senior product manager in charge of Lightroom. "If you pick up the camera for the sake of creating an artistic thing and not just recording a family event, you've really taken the plunge into serious photography. Anyone at that level is an ideal Lightroom customer."

One significant feature common to SLRs is the ability to shoot "raw" photos--the images taken directly from the image sensors without the camera baking in its own assumptions about what's right. ... Read more

The Smithsonian Institution has begun adding historical photos to The Commons, Flickr's project to host publicly held images.

Felix Nadar is one subject among hundreds from the Smithsonian Institution now visible at Flickr.

(Credit: Smithsonian)

The Smithsonian added 800 photographs from its collection of 13 million images, and 1,200 more will be added in coming months, Yahoo said in a Thursday announcement.

"Our goals in participating in The Commons on Flickr are to expose new, larger, broader and younger audiences to our photographic collections and help them discover more of the Smithsonian educational resources," said Richard Kurin, the acting undersecretary for history, art, and culture, in a statement..

Flickr launched The Commons with the Library of Congress in January. It's also drawn interest from the Powerhouse Museum, which joined The Commons in April and said it's happy with the results it's seen.

Putting the photos on Flickr lets ordinary people add tags and other annotations. That can be good and bad: people can label historic buildings, but also clutter shots with inane notes such as the "daddy?" note on a photo of Albert Einstein and others.

Flickr is a prominent part of Yahoo, but changes are afoot at the site. Stewart Butterfield and Caterina Fake, the husband-and-wife co-founders of Flickr, are leaving Yahoo.

IM2GPS compares a sample photo (top left) to geotagged Flickr photos to find other similar shots (top right) to guess where the sample was taken.

(Credit: Carnegie Mellon University)

Thousands of others have taken the trouble to geotag their photos, so why should you have to jump through a lot of technical hoops to add location data to your pictures?

That's the upshot of a technique devised by Carnegie Mellon researchers and announced Wednesday. The technique, called IM2GPS, compares a single photo to the millions already on Flickr that already have latitude and longitude coordinates.

The algorithm looks at a photo's properties, such as textures, color distribution, and line patterns, then looks for matches at Flickr.

"We're not asking the computer to tell us what is depicted in the photo but to find other photos that look like it," said Alexei A. Efros, assistant professor of computer science and robotics, in a statement.

Efros also has been involved in photo research such as the scene completion technology that can patch over unsightly elements in a photo by drawing from similar ones stored at Flickr.

The researchers found they could locate sample photos within 200 kilometers for 16 percent of their test photos, which may not sound terribly useful, but it is 30 percent better than chance would predict, the university said. And that could still be useful for tasks such as forensic crime research or for guiding other image-processing tasks--for example identifying a taxi in Japan.

It worked more specifically at times, for example matching Paris' Notre Dame cathedral well, but the algorithm found Sydney's Opera House similar to a hotel in Mississippi and to a bridge in London.

Geotagging today is a complex task that typically requires a user to run specialized software that pulls location data from a GPS device's track log, then adds it to photos depending on the time each was taken. Geotagging isn't for the faint of heart today, though higher-end cameras from Canon and Nikon make it easier with the ability to plug a GPS directly into the camera, and camera makers have begun building GPS into some models.

Geotagging may seem abstruse, but it has potential advantages. You could find out just where that photo of the nice church in Ireland was taken even long after your vacation itinerary has faded from memory, for example.

Or with technology that converts geographic coordinates into actual place names, you could find your own photos or others' shots with ordinary search terms. For that latter challenge, Flickr is working to try to make it easier for users to identify in works the locations of their geotagged photos.

Chris DiBona's job--manager of Google's open-source programs--is a balancing act.

Google consumes a lot of open-source software for its own highly profitable business. But as he oversees the search powerhouse's open-source work, DiBona has to ensure that the company reciprocates. It can't be all take and no give.

Chris DiBona, Google's manager of open-source programs

(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET News.com)

Free and open-source software advocates can be powerful allies--but also vocal critics. For example, some have critized Google for its lack of support for the Affero GPL license, which can require those using software for a publicly available network service to share modifications they've made to an AGPL software project.

DiBona thinks Google strikes the right balance, though, by offering its own modifications back to many open-source projects, advocating the philosophy in general, and trying to nurture the next generation of open-source programmers.

DiBona has been steeped in open-source software for more than a decade. Before his job at Google, he worked for Slashdot, still an influential virtual water cooler for open-source discussion. Slashdot was part of Linux server maker VA Linux Systems, which had a spectacular initial public offering in 1999 followed not long after by a drastic cutback.

DiBona will be preaching the open-source gospel at the Google I/O conference Wednesday--"open source is too good to be true and thus must be magic," according to the agenda--but I sat down with him beforehand to hear his view of open-source software at Google.

What's the view of open source within Google?
I asked myself, "Who am I trying to address?" The world of open-source business? No. The world of the open-source enthusiast? No. I'm really looking to work with open-source developers. We came up with these goals for our group: to support open-source development in general, which means to support open-source infrastructure; support the release of open-source code, from Google and in general; and to create more open-source developers, because especially when I started, there was a perception that Google took a lot of people from the open-source world and then went away. It was partly true, because people would come here and say, "Wow, I've been working on my open-source project forever, and I want a new problem," and we have a very good class of new problem. So they kind of went away.

That was too bad. The last thing we wanted as a company was to hurt the release of open-source software, because we consider it pretty important. We use a ton of it. Every engineer we bring on--how much open-source do they want to use? We have new packages and new libraries being brought into the company all the time. It's our group's job to track that. As we brought people in, we wanted to be sure more open-source developers were being created. So that's where we came up with the Google Summer of Code, and now we have a high-school flavor of that as well. I think we've made a very real impact in creating new people in the open-source world.

I'm curious about maintaining a balance between contributing back to upstream projects vs. maintaining your own internal forks. How do you go through that evaluation?
Google considers some projects more important than others. Obviously the Linux kernel is incredibly important. Every time you use Google, you're using a machine running the Linux kernel. We have a fairly large kernel team, and we employ people whose job is just to work on the external kernel. Andrew Morton is a good example of that. We try to make sure those guys patch out (submit their modifications to the main open-source project) whenever they can. It's usually more dictated by the engineer's time than it is any lack of desire on our part. I always wish we were able to release more, but it takes time for an engineer to do that. For the larger efforts, it's a little easier because there are more personnel on it.

The same thing goes for our compilers (software that translates programmers' code into instructions a computer understands). The great thing about our compiler team is they patch as a matter of their jobs. They're always patching out things from the compiler work we do internally to the outside world. We recently released the new linker, Gold--Ian Lance Taylor works for us on our compiler team. He's been on the GCC team forever. He used to be at Cygnus (a company that developed GCC). We have a lot of ex-Cygnus people.

Then there are Googlers who just want to patch into an existing projects. They found a bug, they want to add a feature. That takes no time at all. Our team looks at the first couple patches an engineer wants to send out, makes sure the engineer knows what they're doing with the outside world, then they're basically given free rein to do that. They keep us posted on what they're patching. We want to make sure our code gets out to the projects as fast as possible because projects keep on iterating. If you don't get your patches in, they won't get accepted, because they'll be too old or won't matter. If you've got a patch, getting it out there fast is better for us, because then as that project iterates and comes back into the company, we don't have to reapply a patch.

What are the most important open-source projects you ingest?
The kernel, compilers--GCC, the Python interpreter. Python is very important to us. Google App Engine--it's a Python hosting system, basically. Java is very important to us, and that's become open-source now. We have some very good Java people working for us--Josh Block, Neil Gafter--they've got a great handle on that technology.

Once you get past those three projects--the compilers, the languages, the kernel--then you go to the libraries. For us that's OpenSSL, zlib, PCRE. MySQL is hugely important to us. Past that, it starts tapering off pretty quick.

Has the open-sourcing of Java changed anything for you?
Not really. I think it had more impact on the outside world than for us. Java is a fairly mature language now. We've been using it for a long time. Before, it was the JCP (the Java Community Process to govern Java's future)--it had the rubric of openness around it. It was never really not so open. There are questions around what open source means now around Java, specifically J2ME (Java's mobile edition for gadgets such as cell phones) and the TCK (the technology compatibility kit).

Are you using a super-uber-customized Linux kernel, or are you guys pretty much vanilla?
I don't think there's such thing as a customized Linux kernel anymore. The kernel is incredibly flexible. It's got all these different architectures. I think the Linux kernel itself is this ubercustomized thing.

But do you have a lot of in-house customizations?
Not a lot. Google is exposed to some interesting hardware before the rest of the world. So internally we'll be sampling code for that hardware. So that's pretty custom stuff. But eventually that goes to the outside world. We funded some work with a group in Berkeley called Xorp to bring high-speed Broadcom networking chip functionality to Linux. It's not in our interest to keep control of it ourselves. So is it customized? Absolutely. But is it heavily customized? I don't think it is as heavily customized as you might think.

Is it true you still use 2.4 kernels?
In some places, sure.

How about for the core search product?
I don't know how it's partitioned out. When you think of Google, you think of search being on top of a kernel that's static. It's not always like that. It differs on data centers. I think 2.6 predominates, though.

If you talk to open-source developers--people who are working on projects--I think they understand that. It came back to who do we want to interact with. I always felt the enthusiast community would understand that eventually, and I think that's true. There are some people who are upset with us because we didn't embrace the Affero-style GPL, but it's not practical for us to do so. When they had an Affero-style clause in GPLv3, the thing I told Eben was, "Listen, you can adopt whatever you want. We'll still keep on backing up the FSF and the SFLC as much as we can, but it means we won't be able to use that license inside, because it won't be practical for us to do so." I think that's a very realistic response. The Affero GPL is out there. That's great for the people who use it. It's just not for us.

That's the thing about free software. You're not obligated to use it. We have enough fine-grained control within the company that we don't use things we don't want to use.

What are your preferred licenses?
We generally release under the Apache License--Apache 2. We think it has the fairest language of the licenses. And the GPL requires a lot of management--more than we have time for to run a project well under that license--patch flow and all that. Apache 2 encourages people to take the thing and run with it. That's what we're going for when we release code, whether it's to have people adopt technologies we really like, or for API examples. That said, we've released things under the GPL, LGPL, GPL version 3, BSD. We default to the Apache License.

To what extent to you subsidize gurus to sit around and work on important projects?
We've got people like Jeremy Allison and Andrew Morton and some of Guido (van Rossom)'s time. He's been working pretty heavily on Google App Engine and Mondrian. It's more common that we...try to make open source a part of their job, so they're patching out to the libraries they use. We think that's more healthy than having people whose job is just working on an open-source project.

Since Google doesn't distribute a lot of software, we have it easier than companies that ship hardware and software. We have a couple situations where that does happen--the Google Search Appliance, some of the downloadable applications. Those get a little extra attention. Similarly, when we have larger projects like Google Android, we have a higher ceremony--every two weeks we get together and see if the license picture has changed.

The tracking model works really well for us. We have tools written where a program manager or a release manager can turn on a certain level of warning within the build tool and it will tell them what open-source software they have and how they have to comply with it. At that point we set up a mirror for them as they get closer to release.

So that's the first way we track things. The second way is whenever a Googler puts in a changelist now--this is something we're just starting to do--we compare it against all known open-source code on the Internet using our Code Search product. We compare the changelist that comes from your average Google engineer against that database of code and we look for intersections. When we find an intersection, we take a look and see if it's truly a copy. And if it is, we make sure it's in the right directory and that it's properly labeled. And we call up the engineer if it isn't and make sure it gets tagged properly so we can do the right thing by these licenses.

That tool is kind of in its infancy. We're trying to figure out ways to automate what it does. But it's great because it scales programmatically. Our group's goal is not to break builds or stop development. It's to enable developers to use as much open-source as possible. We think it's healthy, because then they're not writing that code, they're writing other code.

Do you vet code for patent or copyright?
No. We have legal people on our lists. We have two main lists that track these things. Open-source licensing for incoming code and open-source releasing for outgoing code. Legal has a presence there. Patents are incredibly tricky.

Is it easier to get hired at Google if you have experience maintaining your own open-source product or patch?
If you have made a name for yourself in open source, clearly it helps. If you have a healthy project in open-source, I believe it helps. One thing I see on hiring committees is when somebody has an open-source history, it's really great. You can just look at that history. Interviews are great, but they're not very deep. They're only 45 minutes long. So how can you really get a feel for if a person is good at programming, at computer science?

Or at social relations, for that matter.
Open source really reveals that incredibly quickly. You can look at their code, at their activity on mailing lists, how they deal with bugs from real people, and real user problems. That's an incredible resource.

The Summer of Code isn't really a recruiting program. If it is, it's a really expensive one. Last year we created about 2 million lines of open-source code across the 900 students who took part. Of those probably a third are going to stick around with their projects, because the rest have to go back to college.

We have a couple students who have been in the program two or three years. The whole point is to support kids over the summer so they can go and program and not get some other job that has nothing to do with computer science. It's our fourth year doing it. This year we've go 1,109 students doing it across 95 countries.