So we are supposed to upload the code for a revolutionary, creative, high-impact app against this risk to reward profile?
Tens of thousands of people will enter this contest given that it is Google and the large size of the prizes
There are a less than miniscule number of slots with prizes that are of any monetary significance
Our entry has to survive the very real hurdles of being seen by a judge who is tired, or without interest, or done in by the simple vagaries of luck where our entry could easily not be viewed at all
This is an inherent logic paradox. Most developers I know with an app even close to the lofty level you state you are seeking for the contest would consider the risk to reward level of this context absurdly bad.
I donât know who started this âshare your source codeâ trend but thatâs a hard pass for me and all of my high income developer friends. If you were serious about attracting the best apps and developers out there, you would establish the policy of requesting the source from only those you have elected to be winners (or at least finalists) and would then keep the source code completely confidential. You are obviously letting us know how much you value our source code compared to yours. If you were to try and do the same on your part with your source code, your IP attorneys would immediately summon you on to the carpet for a harsh rebuke or far worse.
To the other contest entrants out there. Have fun, I hope you do well and good luck.
I found this on the submission form, it says the following:
If your code is public, please add your GitHub link below. Otherwise, upload a zip file to Google Drive, set the sharing to âAnyone with the link,â and share the link below.
So Iâm guessing the repo can be private and you can submit the code to the judges as a zip file alone. Donât know if this might be helpful @Skeptic ?
While itâs true that participation in the Gemini API developer competition is optional, the original post raised valid concerns about the competitionâs structure and the risks involved in sharing proprietary source code. The comparison to GitHub comically oversimplifies the situation. Open source projects are shared under specific licenses and often with the intent of community collaboration, which is different from potentially handing over innovative, proprietary code without sufficient safeguards.
The issues highlighted werenât about the concept of sharing code in general but rather about the potential unfairness in the judging process and the risk-to-reward ratio for developers considering the value of their intellectual property. Itâs not just about whether to participate or not; itâs about whether the terms of participation respect the contributions and protect the interests of developers. These are legitimate concerns that deserve a thoughtful response, rather than a dismissal with a reminder of the optional nature of the competition.
I agree with releasing the source code only to Google to see if Gemini is being used correctly in my work, but I donât agree with making the code available to everyone like open source. The team also thought there was a problem and discussed it.
If the participation rules clearly state that ``all source code will be made public,ââ it would be possible to submit ideas based on that, but the rules are very rough and there will likely be many opinions. .
Above all, the rule explanations in languages ââother than English are automatically translated, and the sad reality is that they are not translated very well.