4 ms·

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 sti

by Crinus 7y ago

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?

fastball 7y ago
The language is not the name. The name is protected.
- droithomme 7y ago
  > 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's because ANSI is a protected term, not C. And unlike Go. Now let's assume it's not true. In that case Go is not Google's language and there are no ip issues. I can make and release a compiler, call it a Go compiler, and I'm fine. Which is it? Unsure. I find no information suggesting Go is trademarked. But there are people like in your post claiming that it is. If so that should be easy to cite. I really don't know which it is. So many people claiming the word Go is protected. Perhaps they have better references than I could find and we can figure out what sort of language Go really is.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    I'm not sure what you're arguing. You certainly have the right to fork GO and release your fork. There may be restrictions on what you call that fork (as in, you may not be allowed to use the name 'Go' anywhere in the name) - but that's a separate issue.
  - Crinus 7y ago
    Both Go and the Go logo are trademarked, see the responses in the linked post (use private mode if Google asks for login).
    - droithomme 7y ago
      Thanks. I read further along in the linked post and found this comment by Rob Pike, one of Go's chief developers: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/6dKNSN0M_kg/dMCQBoSRBAAJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/6dKNSN0M_kg/dMCQ... > The name Go is not trademarked by Google, at least as a programming language trademark. There are other things Google makes called Go (an interesting signal on its own) and they might be trademarked, but Go the language is not a trademark. > -rob But, here is Google's official trademark list: https://www.google.com/permissions/trademark/trademark-list/ https://www.google.com/permissions/trademark/trademark-list/ > Golang™ programming language > Go™ programming language Golang and Go are trademarked by Google as programming languages and Rob Pike is not aware of this. That is interesting. Rob should be made aware. And so the debate is now settled: Go is in fact Google's programming language, as an empirical legal fact.
      - throwawaymath 7y ago
        I'm not certain, but I think that page is wrong. I searched the USPTO database of trademarks for "Golang" and nothing was picked up: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4809%3Axehul0.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=Golang&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24ALL&p_op_ALL=OR&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4809%3Ax... I'm not confident I'm correct only because it seems unlikely Google would have a page listing trademarks it doesn't actually own. That being said, I'm pretty sure there's no other place to search for trademarks. I also don't think there is actually a trademark on the term "Go" based on this USPTO search: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4809%3Axehul0.6.301 http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4809%3Ax.... But admittedly I've only looked through five or six pages; using the option to search for an exact term doesn't seem to cut down the search results at all.
- Crinus 7y ago
  That is splitting hairs, the name is part of the language - it is how you refer to it, you cannot remove it. If i name my implementation Glag it wont be Go, it will be Glag which just happens to be compatible with Go. Someone using my compiler wouldn't be using Go, they'd be using Glag. 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.
  - fastball 7y ago
    > If i name my implementation Glag it wont be Go, it will be Glag which just happens to be compatible with Go. Someone using my compiler wouldn't be using Go, they'd be using Glag. Exactly. You're making my point for me.
    - Crinus 7y ago
      I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
      - fastball 7y ago
        The name is not the language. You can fork Go, call it Glag, and you will have a language that is interoperable with Go. In fact, it is Go - you just changed the name. And this is perfectly OK to do. If I take Spanish, rename it Bogolog, and start speaking Bogolog around Madrid, people will understand me. Why? Because it's the same language they're speaking, I just changed the name. The language is not the name.
- c3534l 7y ago
  I'm not so sure. Technically the name isn't Go, since that was already a protected name in use by someone else. So it's "Golang." And if "Golang" is acceptably different from "Go," I don't see why "Cnus-Go" shouldn't be different enough, too. It seems like at the very least you'd have to call it "Cnus-Golang" in order to start infringing on their IP.
  - bboreham 7y ago
    This page lists "Go™ programming language" as owned by Google: https://www.google.com/permissions/trademark/trademark-list/ https://www.google.com/permissions/trademark/trademark-list/ (Also there is discussion of this point in comments to TFA)
macspoofing 7y ago
You can though you may have to remove 'Go' from the name as trademark is either owned by Google or owned by the 'Go' project.
munificent 7y ago
Yes, you have always been able to do that. The open source license it uses enables that.
- Crinus 7y ago
  The open source license allows me to fork the implementation of Go, but not use a derivative of the Go name for my derivative of the Go implementation (to ensure/show, among others, that people know that my work is about Go and not some other language or something i came up with).
  - UncleMeat 7y ago
    Since when has being able to use a derivative of the name ever been a requirement (or important) for free software?
    - badsectoracula 7y ago
      The original toplevel comment was about making a new compiler, not a derivative of an existing one, the comment you reply to is a continuation of that discussion not a standalone comment. The implication here is that the open source license is about a specific implementation and only covers that implementation but it doesn't cover its name, as you rightfully point out. Munificent wrote that the open source license protects you if you decide to create your own Go compiler and name using a derivative of the Go name, but this is wrong since the open source license does not cover the name.
jhawk28 7y ago
llvmgo and gccgo would indicate, yes you can.
- rvp-x 7y ago
  It's worth noting that Ian Lance Taylor (author of this post) is the maintainer of gccgo.
MaxfordAndSons 7y ago
If it's an actual, standards adherent implementation of Go, nobody should a shit what you call it. If it actually changes the language spec, then you would have to rename it for legal reason, but you should also want to rename it - unless it's a backwards compatible superset of the language, you wouldn't want people to think it's YAGC and just feed it their vanilla Go code and be surprised when it doesn't work.
- badsectoracula 7y ago
  How does the adherence to Go's spec of a compiler affects its legality with regards to the compiler's name? And why is that an exception if it is a backwards compatible superset when a new version of the "real" Go could come out with new features that are incompatible with the extensions (thus rendering the previously compatible superset now incompatible and presumable illegal)?
  - MaxfordAndSons 7y ago
    The point I'm trying to make is there's a difference between re-implementing the language and forking it, is there not?
kristianp 7y ago
Yes, please do so, and implement some Generics too!

by Crinus 7y ago

fastball 7y ago

The language is not the name. The name is protected.

droithomme 7y ago
> 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's because ANSI is a protected term, not C. And unlike Go. Now let's assume it's not true. In that case Go is not Google's language and there are no ip issues. I can make and release a compiler, call it a Go compiler, and I'm fine. Which is it? Unsure. I find no information suggesting Go is trademarked. But there are people like in your post claiming that it is. If so that should be easy to cite. I really don't know which it is. So many people claiming the word Go is protected. Perhaps they have better references than I could find and we can figure out what sort of language Go really is.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  I'm not sure what you're arguing. You certainly have the right to fork GO and release your fork. There may be restrictions on what you call that fork (as in, you may not be allowed to use the name 'Go' anywhere in the name) - but that's a separate issue.
- Crinus 7y ago
  Both Go and the Go logo are trademarked, see the responses in the linked post (use private mode if Google asks for login).
  - droithomme 7y ago
    Thanks. I read further along in the linked post and found this comment by Rob Pike, one of Go's chief developers: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/6dKNSN0M_kg/dMCQBoSRBAAJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/6dKNSN0M_kg/dMCQ... > The name Go is not trademarked by Google, at least as a programming language trademark. There are other things Google makes called Go (an interesting signal on its own) and they might be trademarked, but Go the language is not a trademark. > -rob But, here is Google's official trademark list: https://www.google.com/permissions/trademark/trademark-list/ https://www.google.com/permissions/trademark/trademark-list/ > Golang™ programming language > Go™ programming language Golang and Go are trademarked by Google as programming languages and Rob Pike is not aware of this. That is interesting. Rob should be made aware. And so the debate is now settled: Go is in fact Google's programming language, as an empirical legal fact.
    - throwawaymath 7y ago
      I'm not certain, but I think that page is wrong. I searched the USPTO database of trademarks for "Golang" and nothing was picked up: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4809%3Axehul0.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=Golang&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24ALL&p_op_ALL=OR&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4809%3Ax... I'm not confident I'm correct only because it seems unlikely Google would have a page listing trademarks it doesn't actually own. That being said, I'm pretty sure there's no other place to search for trademarks. I also don't think there is actually a trademark on the term "Go" based on this USPTO search: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4809%3Axehul0.6.301 http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4809%3Ax.... But admittedly I've only looked through five or six pages; using the option to search for an exact term doesn't seem to cut down the search results at all.
Crinus 7y ago
That is splitting hairs, the name is part of the language - it is how you refer to it, you cannot remove it. If i name my implementation Glag it wont be Go, it will be Glag which just happens to be compatible with Go. Someone using my compiler wouldn't be using Go, they'd be using Glag. 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.
- fastball 7y ago
  > If i name my implementation Glag it wont be Go, it will be Glag which just happens to be compatible with Go. Someone using my compiler wouldn't be using Go, they'd be using Glag. Exactly. You're making my point for me.
  - Crinus 7y ago
    I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
    - fastball 7y ago
      The name is not the language. You can fork Go, call it Glag, and you will have a language that is interoperable with Go. In fact, it is Go - you just changed the name. And this is perfectly OK to do. If I take Spanish, rename it Bogolog, and start speaking Bogolog around Madrid, people will understand me. Why? Because it's the same language they're speaking, I just changed the name. The language is not the name.
c3534l 7y ago
I'm not so sure. Technically the name isn't Go, since that was already a protected name in use by someone else. So it's "Golang." And if "Golang" is acceptably different from "Go," I don't see why "Cnus-Go" shouldn't be different enough, too. It seems like at the very least you'd have to call it "Cnus-Golang" in order to start infringing on their IP.
- bboreham 7y ago
  This page lists "Go™ programming language" as owned by Google: https://www.google.com/permissions/trademark/trademark-list/ https://www.google.com/permissions/trademark/trademark-list/ (Also there is discussion of this point in comments to TFA)

macspoofing 7y ago

You can though you may have to remove 'Go' from the name as trademark is either owned by Google or owned by the 'Go' project.

munificent 7y ago

Yes, you have always been able to do that. The open source license it uses enables that.

Crinus 7y ago
The open source license allows me to fork the implementation of Go, but not use a derivative of the Go name for my derivative of the Go implementation (to ensure/show, among others, that people know that my work is about Go and not some other language or something i came up with).
- UncleMeat 7y ago
  Since when has being able to use a derivative of the name ever been a requirement (or important) for free software?
  - badsectoracula 7y ago
    The original toplevel comment was about making a new compiler, not a derivative of an existing one, the comment you reply to is a continuation of that discussion not a standalone comment. The implication here is that the open source license is about a specific implementation and only covers that implementation but it doesn't cover its name, as you rightfully point out. Munificent wrote that the open source license protects you if you decide to create your own Go compiler and name using a derivative of the Go name, but this is wrong since the open source license does not cover the name.

jhawk28 7y ago

llvmgo and gccgo would indicate, yes you can.

rvp-x 7y ago
It's worth noting that Ian Lance Taylor (author of this post) is the maintainer of gccgo.

MaxfordAndSons 7y ago

If it's an actual, standards adherent implementation of Go, nobody should a shit what you call it. If it actually changes the language spec, then you would have to rename it for legal reason, but you should also want to rename it - unless it's a backwards compatible superset of the language, you wouldn't want people to think it's YAGC and just feed it their vanilla Go code and be surprised when it doesn't work.

badsectoracula 7y ago
How does the adherence to Go's spec of a compiler affects its legality with regards to the compiler's name? And why is that an exception if it is a backwards compatible superset when a new version of the "real" Go could come out with new features that are incompatible with the extensions (thus rendering the previously compatible superset now incompatible and presumable illegal)?
- MaxfordAndSons 7y ago
  The point I'm trying to make is there's a difference between re-implementing the language and forking it, is there not?

kristianp 7y ago

Yes, please do so, and implement some Generics too!