On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:01 PM, <matthewju...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Why would you assume more liability than necessary? > > > My thought is the authors want to gain serious users to increase feedback > quality and improve the developer market. I thought this was why Google let > Go be open source besides attracting academic uses. > >> And as an open source developer who does not get paid, I feel better if >> I have no liability whatsoever. Now, if you were PAYING ME for my >> services, then I will be happy to provide you with assurances that make >> you feel better. > > > I don't think this is the attitude behind GCC, or maybe it is. I want to > write programs that do things worth money and hope to use Go or GCC to do so > (including working with and on those projects for free), but if they might > include unnecessary liability beyond regular bugs then that's a problem for > me.
Both Go and GCC get an advantage from using widely-used and well-understood free software licenses. Making any modification to those licenses would force every large organization that wants to use these tools to reanalyze the license to make sure it will be acceptable. So the place to change this, if you think there is a need to change it, is not with individual projects, but with an umbrella organization like the Free Software Foundation or the Open Source Initiative. 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.
