You are not correct. There are current cases where apis are being claimed to be copyrighted. It is under active litigation.
> On Feb 27, 2019, at 8:19 AM, Space A. <reexist...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You have very poor understanding of the subject, messing everything up. > There is no "derivatives" in Go's license terms at all. There is only > redistribution in binary and source form and it covers only what's in the > repo (https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/LICENSE). > > Compilation is not redistribution. > > PS: Don't want to spend to much time on this, but just to point out - > derivative is NOT a kind of sophistic mess when something is just based on > something. You can fork stdlib, add some extra changes and distribute it as > "stdlib v.2 improved" - in this case this would become derivative. If you > just use stdlib for your work, your work is not derivative from stdlib. And > if you want to talk in copyright laws terms, lets start from the point that > programming languages can't be protected by copyright at all (like "idea", > "concept", etc - same). > >> The short answer to this question is that a >> lawyer should be consulted. > > This is 100% clear case and you can distribute your compiled binaries free, > without any additional requirements, restrictions, giving or not credits, or > binding yourself to some specific license, what so ever. > C'mon guys. > > > > > ср, 27 февр. 2019 г. в 07:24, Dan Kortschak <d...@kortschak.io>: >> In-line >> >> On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 06:31 +0300, Space A. wrote: >> > Executable is not derivative work to stdlib or anything. >> >> I think you'll find this is not the case in most jurisdictions. It is >> certainly not true here, and probably also not in the US. >> >> From https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf >> >> "A derivative work is a work based on or derived from one or more >> already existing works." >> >> > Go's repo license covers only repo. >> >> No. >> >> Point 2: >> >> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above >> copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer >> in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the >> distribution." >> >> Note that redistribution is based on the notion of derivative works >> above. The binary is a derivative of the source code, which is, in this >> case the standard library. >> >> > Stdlib is not redistributed when you compile binary. >> >> Yes it is, in a derivative form. >> >> > It has nothing to do with GPL. >> >> The licenses are different. In this sense you are absolutely correct, >> this has nothing to do with the GPL. However, in another, far more >> correct sense, it is indeed related. Both the GPL and the BSD3 are >> based on the notions that make copyright work. The licensing of the >> work is based on that fact that the copyright owner has a sole right to >> distribute the work. This is licensed to the recipient under a set of >> conditions based on well established definitions of "derivative" and >> "redistribute". Those two terms are shared by the GPL and BSD3. >> >> Note that the LGPL goes to lengths to distinguish between the binary of >> the licensed work and items that are derivative, but dynamically >> linked, purely because of the connection between the original source >> and the binary that is the resulting executable (i.e. not the binary >> representation of the library). >> >> > Go's license is simple and clear. >> >> And yet, here we are. The short answer to this question is that a >> lawyer should be consulted. >> >> >> > >> > ср, 27 февр. 2019 г., 6:00 Dan Kortschak <d...@kortschak.io>: >> > >> > > >> > > Probably not. The executable is a derivative work under most >> > > understandings (this is the basis for the GPL to require that >> > > source >> > > code be provided if the executable is distributed to an end user). >> > > >> > > Any work writen in Go, using the stdlib (which includes runtime, so >> > > all >> > > Go programs) is derivative of the stdlib. This means that the Go >> > > license pertains. >> > > >> > > On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 18:35 -0800, Space A. wrote: >> > > > >> > > > You are wrong. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > среда, 27 февраля 2019 г., 5:22:12 UTC+3 пользователь Ian >> > > > Denhardt >> > > > написал: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Quoting Space A. (2019-02-26 20:58:40) >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > and stdlib only when redistributed separately as a whole in >> > > > > > binary >> > > > > > form. When stdlib is used to compile regular binary, it's not >> > > > > > "redistributed" >> > > > > This is not my understanding; in general static linking >> > > > > constitutes >> > > > > distribution (though you are correct re: compiler output of >> > > > > your >> > > > > own >> > > > > code). >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Correct answer >> > > > > The "correct answer," really, is to ask someone actually >> > > > > qualified >> > > > > to >> > > > > give you legal advice. >> > > > > >> > > > > -Ian >> > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
