![]() ![]() I see functionality on pkg.go.dev that is not available on godocs.io, like being able to see the version history of a package and look at docs for a particular version annotations showing which version added a particular declaration to a package detected license information symbol search, like and reverse imports. > The thing that replaced it is not functionally equivalent, full stop. ![]() There is a long story behind that, which I won't go into.) (It took us a couple months to get all the permissions lined up for the open source release, and that was a misstep on our part. The "proprietary" part is not true either, at least not anymore: the source code for pkg.go.dev is at /x/pkgsite. The service still exists, it's just pkg.go.dev instead of. Eventually we replaced it with a newer version of the service. The maintainer approached us to take it over, which we did, to keep an important service available to the Go community. This is just as untrue as "Google bought just to cancel and replace with proprietary bloat.". existed, Google showed up, and now it does not. > You're making a big deal about "bought" but it doesn't really matter whether money changed hands. ![]() Does Google check for and bless licenses in their web crawler? I have some trouble believing a company of Google's size worries about the implication of what boils down to analyzing publicly available data. It feels like G only blesses certain licenses to an end user. One can see how both changes could lead to a lot of dissatisfaction, I think.Īll of that aside, the legal issue described is a real double edged sword. However, I'm not sure just ignoring folks is the right answer either. FWIW, I'm just a passive observer and never argued one way or another. I don't want to rehash or argue that here, and probably you don't either. I'm curious if the original maintainer would have agreed to such action(in fairness, it doesn't matter, just wondering).įurther, many have expressed their distaste with the banner. Many have lamented a noticeably degraded experience. It feels the main inflammatory issue pointed out is 'bought' vs 'agreed to take over.' It is an important distinction, but to the end user the result is the same. I'm not who you are replying to, but am a contributor since the v1 ish days and will try to remain respectful, as I feel you usually are. I'm glad that the copyright violations on that site never led to any legal action. That was almost certainly a mistake, one that went unnoticed during the transfer of to Google. Yes, used to display docs for code using any license at all. pkg.go.dev does recognize and display CC0-licensed code. If just saying "I put this in the public domain" were enough, the CC0 license would not be so incredibly long. It also turns out to be fairly difficult, legally, to put something in the public domain. Google's lawyers do not have any interest in one day having to stand up in court and defend having made commercial use of some software by debating the exact legal meaning of 'what the fuck you want to'. WTFPL is very much not that kind of clear statement: it does not explicitly grant the copyright-reserved rights. The 0BSD and MIT-0 licenses are good examples of clear statements granting the necessary rights, with no actual restrictions on use. It is not hard to make a clear statement that code is licensed to allow the specific uses that are otherwise reserved to the author in copyright law. Our lawyers have decided that displaying a derived work (the docs) on a commercial site (anything Google runs) is something we need an clear license for. I'm stunned to see you spreading misinformation like this.Īs for licenses, Google has deep pockets and does not want to be sued for non-permitted use of other people's source code. The idea that we "bought" "just to cancel and replace" it is incredibly incendiary and not even remotely close to true. So we wrote a new one instead of trying to evolve the old one in place, and when it was ready, we turned down the old one with appropriate redirects to keep links working. When the time came to update to support Go modules, it was clear that a lot would need to change - the old godoc code just didn't expect any of the concepts that modules added. ![]() We put in significant operational time keeping it running - it was not a zero-maintenance server. We agreed, to ensure that this important community resource remained available. The maintainer of tired of taking care of it and approached us about taking it over. To be very clear, Google did not buy at all. I would have expected something more balanced from you. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |