Please read https://golang.org/conduct
Your comments here have been in my view contrary to this document.
On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 23:48 +0300, Space A. wrote:
> I could, of course, however I never did. And I'd like to keep myself
> out of
> the scope of discussion. If you re-read my messages,
I could, of course, however I never did. And I'd like to keep myself out of
the scope of discussion. If you re-read my messages, you'll find they were
focused on topic, not shifting to persons. Thank you for your
participation, it's always good to hear different opinions, even if they
are not
You're claiming expertise in copyright law in at least two
jurisdictions, and claiming greater understanding of Australian
copyright legislation than a person who has had training in Australian
copyright legislation as part of their employment.
I'm done here.
On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 23:19 +0300,
Sorry? You have poor understanding and mess things, so what's wrong? Being
dilatant is not crime, it's okay unless you start convincing yourself that
false is true.
ср, 27 февр. 2019 г. в 22:41, Dan Kortschak :
> Pull your head in and stop being rude to people here.
>
> On Wed, 2019-02-27 at
GPL is another license with different terms, I would say offtopic.
ср, 27 февр. 2019 г. в 21:55, Robert Engels :
> You are not correct. You might wish to read this
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception which covers many
> of the same issues, and how they think they resolved it.
Pull your head in and stop being rude to people here.
On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 17:19 +0300, Space A. wrote:
> You have very poor understanding of the subject, messing everything
> up.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe
You are not correct. You might wish to read this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception which covers many of the
same issues, and how they think they resolved it.
> On Feb 27, 2019, at 12:45 PM, Space A. wrote:
>
> It's very clear case. It will never become a case in a court.
It's very clear case. It will never become a case in a court. Otherwise, if
it ever will, I mean, compiling own program and distributing a binary which
used stdlib e.g. without kissing someone's ass - language is dead.
ср, 27 февр. 2019 г. в 21:39, Robert Engels :
> That is incorrect thinking.
Same again, messing everything. It's not API, we are talking about
distributing compiled executables.
ср, 27 февр. 2019 г. в 21:36, Robert Engels :
> You are not correct. There are current cases where apis are being claimed
> to be copyrighted. It is under active litigation.
>
> On Feb 27,
That is incorrect thinking. And again, it is all subject to litigation. Whether
you are right or wrong is up to the courts to decide.
> On Feb 27, 2019, at 8:55 AM, Space A. wrote:
>
> Regarding runtime - it's interesting (and separate question maybe), and I
> would argue that runtime IS
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. wrote:
>
> You have very poor understanding of the subject, messing everything up.
> There is no "derivatives" in Go's license
This would only be true if *derivatives* were specified. Go links
everything static by default, so in *very* broad terms, the binaries are
derivative of the stdlib in the distributed go compiler package. I think
really the proper way to look at this is this exact subject is simply not
There is one place where derivative is irrelevant, that would be where a
patent sticks to the algorithm, and this patently idiotic situation is not
universally applicable, some jurisdictions never added this kind of lunacy
to copyright law (unfortunately, not all).
As I understand it, the
You may look at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html for
a reference.
Manlio Perillo
On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 3:56:10 PM UTC+1, Space A. wrote:
>
> Regarding runtime - it's interesting (and separate question maybe), and I
> would argue that runtime IS part of
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 6:56 AM Space A. wrote:
>
> Regarding runtime - it's interesting (and separate question maybe), and I
> would argue that runtime IS part of language itself because language is not
> only a syntax. It also a garbage collector, a goroutines, etc, as you
> mentioned. You
No that means that it will depend on what's written in this particular
license given by creator of this source codes. It's case by case. For
example they can say that compilation is not allowed at all. Go's repo
license is clear without any "derivatives" "commercial" or "personal"
complex use
Regarding runtime - it's interesting (and separate question maybe), and I
would argue that runtime IS part of language itself because language is not
only a syntax. It also a garbage collector, a goroutines, etc, as you
mentioned. You just can't write Go program without having runtime. It's not
Jan, good that you read my link, however I already answered on this
(quoting myself):
Mentioned license doesn't cover binaries produced by compiler, "binary
> form" there means go tools themselves, and stdlib only when redistributed
> separately as a whole in binary form. When stdlib is used to
On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 2:58:40 AM UTC+1, Space A. wrote:
>
> Mentioned license doesn't cover binaries produced by compiler, "binary
> form" there means go tools themselves, and stdlib only when redistributed
> separately as a whole in binary form. When stdlib is used to compile
>
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:20 PM Space A. wrote:
> 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.
That's not correct. Quoting from
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 9:20 AM Space A. wrote:
> 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.
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
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
Executable is not derivative work to stdlib or anything. Go's repo license
covers only repo. Stdlib is not redistributed when you compile binary. It
has nothing to do with GPL. Go's license is simple and clear.
ср, 27 февр. 2019 г., 6:00 Dan Kortschak :
> Probably not. The executable is a
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
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"
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
Mentioned license doesn't cover binaries produced by compiler, "binary
form" there means go tools themselves, and stdlib only when redistributed
separately as a whole in binary form. When stdlib is used to compile
regular binary, it's not "redistributed", and there are no restrictions or
(IANAL; this is not legal advice)
Generally, the historic principle has been that your source code
transformed by an open source compiler to produce your binary is
unrestricted. (Interesting historical note, the Perl Artistic License is
one of the few licenses that was explicit that the output
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:59 AM R Srinivasan wrote:
>
> what if any are the licensing requirements to distribute a "go" produced
> executable?
See https://go.googlesource.com/go/+/refs/heads/master/LICENSE . The
requirements are minimal.
> are there any "commercial" products built with go?
30 matches
Mail list logo
