3 ms·

Is it a good idea to embed a proprietary language into a open source os?

by slowhadoken 2y ago

eurleif 2y ago
Proprietary? Go is under the BSD license.
- JetSetIlly 2y ago
  Yes. The Go implementation from Google is under the BSD licence. There's also the GNU implementation in GCC that's under the GNU GPL 3 licence. Moreover, the specification itself doesn't seem to have any licencing requirements at all. So you're absolutely right: Go is the very opposite of proprietary.
- neonsunset 2y ago
  In the same way .NET is proprietary under MIT license. Welcome to the club :)
- slowhadoken 2y ago
  Golang is trademarked by Google. It’s a corporate faux open source project. FAANG is co-opting free labor. Even open source platforms like GitHub are a wolf in sheep’s clothing. What Microsoft or Google can’t defeat they acquire.
  - eurleif 2y ago
    FOSSmarks (hosted by FSF, and writers include people affiliated with FSF)[0]: >Trademarks and FOSS are not incompatible; instead, trademarks are legal tools strongly aligned with FOSS principles. A trademark is an assurance that the recipient of the goods or services is receiving a product of known source and qualities. Controlling how a FOSS project trademark is used protects the community and its software, by preventing use of the trademark in ways that are harmful to the reputation of the community or the software. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds[1]. GNU is a registered trademark of the FSF[2]. Your definition of "proprietary" isn't shared by virtually anyone, and would make virtually everything "faux open source", including the "open source os" project you originally worried about Go being integrated into. [0] https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/licensing/2020/FOSSmarksv2.pdf https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/licensing/2020/FOSSmarksv2.pdf [1] https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=74560867&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=74560867&caseSearchType=U... [2] https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85380218&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85380218&caseSearchType=U...
    - slowhadoken 2y ago
      Meredith Whittaker and Elon Musk share similar opinions as me on the subject. I assume you’re a captain of industry?
pjmlp 2y ago
The C language requires paying a 216 CHF by anyone that actually wants to understand how the language works, and not how their compiler deals with the source. Plenty of times they aren't the same. https://www.iso.org/standard/74528.html https://www.iso.org/standard/74528.html
- PhilipRoman 2y ago
  That's not really fair, the working drafts are freely available and (if you take the latest one before official standardization) are the same as the official releases. https://port70.net/~nsz/c/c23/n3220.pdf https://port70.net/~nsz/c/c23/n3220.pdf To be honest, I've never met a single professional who actually bought any IEEE or ISO standard.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    They are drafts for a reason. Plus who seats at WG14 table? Big corporations selling compilers and OSes.
  - jimjimjim 2y ago
    Hi. I've paid for access to ISO standards for PDF related work.
    - nicce 2y ago
      But are you professional in their eyes? :’D
- eru 2y ago
  > The C language requires paying a 216 CHF by anyone that actually wants to understand how the language works, and not how their compiler deals with the source. The binary you are actually executing is made with your compiler, not with the standard; which is just a static human readable document after all. Though I'm not sure what your point is.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
abenga 2y ago
How is Go proprietary?

Is it a good idea to embed a proprietary language into a open source os?

eurleif 2y ago

Proprietary? Go is under the BSD license.

JetSetIlly 2y ago
Yes. The Go implementation from Google is under the BSD licence. There's also the GNU implementation in GCC that's under the GNU GPL 3 licence. Moreover, the specification itself doesn't seem to have any licencing requirements at all. So you're absolutely right: Go is the very opposite of proprietary.
neonsunset 2y ago
In the same way .NET is proprietary under MIT license. Welcome to the club :)
slowhadoken 2y ago
Golang is trademarked by Google. It’s a corporate faux open source project. FAANG is co-opting free labor. Even open source platforms like GitHub are a wolf in sheep’s clothing. What Microsoft or Google can’t defeat they acquire.
- eurleif 2y ago
  FOSSmarks (hosted by FSF, and writers include people affiliated with FSF)[0]: >Trademarks and FOSS are not incompatible; instead, trademarks are legal tools strongly aligned with FOSS principles. A trademark is an assurance that the recipient of the goods or services is receiving a product of known source and qualities. Controlling how a FOSS project trademark is used protects the community and its software, by preventing use of the trademark in ways that are harmful to the reputation of the community or the software. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds[1]. GNU is a registered trademark of the FSF[2]. Your definition of "proprietary" isn't shared by virtually anyone, and would make virtually everything "faux open source", including the "open source os" project you originally worried about Go being integrated into. [0] https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/licensing/2020/FOSSmarksv2.pdf https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/licensing/2020/FOSSmarksv2.pdf [1] https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=74560867&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=74560867&caseSearchType=U... [2] https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85380218&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85380218&caseSearchType=U...
  - slowhadoken 2y ago
    Meredith Whittaker and Elon Musk share similar opinions as me on the subject. I assume you’re a captain of industry?

pjmlp 2y ago

The C language requires paying a 216 CHF by anyone that actually wants to understand how the language works, and not how their compiler deals with the source. Plenty of times they aren't the same. https://www.iso.org/standard/74528.html https://www.iso.org/standard/74528.html

PhilipRoman 2y ago
That's not really fair, the working drafts are freely available and (if you take the latest one before official standardization) are the same as the official releases. https://port70.net/~nsz/c/c23/n3220.pdf https://port70.net/~nsz/c/c23/n3220.pdf To be honest, I've never met a single professional who actually bought any IEEE or ISO standard.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  They are drafts for a reason. Plus who seats at WG14 table? Big corporations selling compilers and OSes.
- jimjimjim 2y ago
  Hi. I've paid for access to ISO standards for PDF related work.
  - nicce 2y ago
    But are you professional in their eyes? :’D
eru 2y ago
> The C language requires paying a 216 CHF by anyone that actually wants to understand how the language works, and not how their compiler deals with the source. The binary you are actually executing is made with your compiler, not with the standard; which is just a static human readable document after all. Though I'm not sure what your point is.
- pjmlp 2y ago

abenga 2y ago

How is Go proprietary?