> > I suspect you are worrying too much given both the long history of > open source software and the large number of > groups/organizations/companies that rely on it.
I was reading about the ILOVEYOU Windows virus and recall hearing about it at the time. In that case the way Windows worked led to a program that corrupted files across the world and caused some institutions to turn off their Internet connection for awhile. Supposedly the person that let it out said they did so by mistake. I'm wondering if Microsoft should have been liable. There are already major mistakes in open source software (Heartbleed in OpenSSL is a recent example) and I know that more than one computer culture involved in open source software in the United States enjoy practical jokes. I think it would look bad for many institutions if their software included a practical joke that unintentionally enabled email addresses to be stolen, but these licenses now invite such an inclusion if the person is willing to trade possible world-wide fame for loss of trust in the software world. By adding the term to the license I'd think that person is now liable instead of the users of the library. But you aren't going to get much in the way of guarantees when you > receive and use something for free. My work is not free, I want to contribute time back. If you really feel you need some sort of legal guarantee then I > suggest you look into some paid options that provide Go and/or GCC, > such as Red Hat or Ubuntu, where there may be more of a legal > framework that is more to your liking. That’s interesting, I may look at these kinds of companies depending on the task. But how can they guarantee Go and/or GCC don't include these things? They don't have a different license. So, even someone selling you a $300 enterprise motherboard doesn't want to > be responsible for ensuring you are using it in a sensible fashion. I don’t think I’m asking for any extra responsibility, I assume in this case there is already an assumption based on trust and money that no intentional mistakes or practical jokes are included, unless there’s some sort of backdoor. Who would determine whether an mistaken action was intentional? This > seems like a very dangerous inclusion. I’d like lawyers to give their interpretation, I’m not a lawyer. 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. I’ll look at bringing this there, thanks. I did have the thought that it might give Go a competitive edge. Thanks, Matt On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 10:45:49 PM UTC-5, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:01 PM, <matthe...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > 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.
