Curious, why is every file copyrighted by Google LLC?

[jafd]

Just as the subject says.

[phkaeser]

Fair question: Google just happens to be my employer, and the suggested default process for publishing open source projects is to have Google LLC as the copright owner, and using Apache 2.0 License.

I followed these defaults because (1) the Apache 2.0 License seems permissive for any users, and (2) with that, I don't mind for my employer holding the copyright, and (3) I didn't want to invest more time into figuring out an alternative :)

I'd be curious if the license & copyright holder are any cause for concern or for holding back with contributions. That would motivate me to investigate alternatives.

[jafd]

For me it's not a cause to not contribute (or to contribute, because I suck at C), it's just that not knowing that you are working for Google makes the source files look as if their header sections were lifted from some example online (published by Google or whatnot) and their contents not modified to have you as the copyright holder. :)

All in all I think it should be made a bit clearer whose the project really is, whether Google is endorsing it (I don't think they would, but who ever knows), and who gets to steward it if you are no longer employed there.

[gnoack]

The thing about the non-endorsement is in the readme file at the repository top level