41–50 of 346 posts
So if it isn't Google's language, does it mean i can go and make my own compiler for it, call it -say- "Crinus Go" (to differentiate it from Google's Go but still point out that it is an implementation of Go) and not worry about Google coming after me?
Well, I do have to log in with my google account to read it...
“It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It” —- Google employee’s defenses of Go Even if it is theoretically true that Go is open source, by employing the majority of the Core Go team, Google exercises extensive soft power over Go. All of the defenses of Go seem to gloss over this.
How many of us get to be lunch or drinking buddies with Russ Cox or Rob Pike? Googlers have much easier access to both than the external community and those are really the only two that matter.
So if it isn't Google's language, does it mean i can go and make my own compiler for it, call it -say- "Crinus Go" (to differentiate it from Google's Go but still point out that it is an implementation of Go) and not worry about Google coming after me?
The language is not the name. The name is protected.
As such, since the Go name is "protected" then the language itself is "protected" even if the protections allow you to contribute your time to Google's language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The language is not the name. The name is protected.
> The name is protected. Let's assume first that is true. And these articles are about Go being Google's language, which is empirically and legally true. Different from C. I can write a C compiler with extensions and release it, call it C or "Something-C" and no IP problems. I can even call it Standard C and even if it's not no one can do anything. I maybe can't call it ANSI C if it's not standard compliant, but that…
A lot of technology development happens at Google and FB and AirBnb these days because that is where the money is, so that is where the smart people go. In the previous generation they would have been at Xerox or Bell Labs. The work they do is often generic and of general interest. We should resist the idea that because the creators are sojourning in the bosom of some corporation, that corp "owns" the work. This is a…
That's a pretty good perspective; lemons to lemonade type of reasoning. If you have a centralization of talent and money, it easily leads to monopolization and stagnation, but if you manage to sail against the wind, so to speak, and you coerce that gigantic cluster of capital into outputting open-source, interop-friendly tech, you've hijacked the monopoly machine for the common good. However, it _is_ sailing against…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? Even if it were GPL, how would that prevent "some corporate overlord" from changing the license later?
You can still fork the code up until the point of the license change and freely modify it going forward.
So if it isn't Google's language, does it mean i can go and make my own compiler for it, call it -say- "Crinus Go" (to differentiate it from Google's Go but still point out that it is an implementation of Go) and not worry about Google coming after me?
First it forced me to log on. Ok I did that. After which the redirects lost the deep link, so I reached a generic landing page. I tried going back but there were more redirects which made that difficult. I finally came back to HN and clicked the link again. Then a spinner came up but didn’t load. A few reloads later and I got a few characters but nothing useful.
What a mess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The language is not the name. The name is protected.
> The name is protected. Let's assume first that is true. And these articles are about Go being Google's language, which is empirically and legally true. Different from C. I can write a C compiler with extensions and release it, call it C or "Something-C" and no IP problems. I can even call it Standard C and even if it's not no one can do anything. I maybe can't call it ANSI C if it's not standard compliant, but that…