GoScrip is not dead

[Archos]

I've closed the repository of GoScript, a compiler from Go (a subset,
by now) to JavaScript, but I'm going to continue with its development
since I cann't work into another of my main projects until that the
garbage collector can work without memory problems in 32-bits systems.

The reasons to close it (the repository):

* Having it open is not synonym to get contributions or feedback.
* I want to hold full control of my code and copyright. This has been
after of somebody (of a company) has contacted with me for his
interest in this project.

Plans for this project:

* Compile almost all Go's sintaxis
* Compile all Go library to JS except where it isn't possible like
packages related to networking and os
* Build a DOM library in Go, for then compile it to JS

[Jan Mercl]

On Sunday, April 22, 2012 12:54:09 PM UTC+2, Archos wrote:

I've closed the repository of GoScript, a compiler from Go (a subset,
by now) to JavaScript, but I'm going to continue with its development
since I cann't work into another of my main projects until that the
garbage collector can work without memory problems in 32-bits systems.

The reasons to close it (the repository):

* Having it open is not synonym to get contributions or feedback.
* I want to hold full control of my code and copyright. This has been
after of somebody (of a company) has contacted with me for his
interest in this project.

There's probably no point in closing the repo even though you have every single right to do so. The code already published is still published and usable in any way the license at the time it was still published permits regardless of the repo now being closed (in effect / in other words the original license is not usually revocable). You have full control over your repo, that also has nothing to do with closing it. You have full copyright of your code, the same applies.

In summary, the easy option is to keep open what has already been opened and continue a closed version elsewhere. You have nothing to lose in that way. Closing the repo is more or less just fine, it's only not necessary at all.

My 2c.

[Aram Hăvărneanu]

It's resting!

--
Aram Hăvărneanu

[Steven Johnson]

The GoScript project in github had an Apache 2.0 license associated
with it; that's pretty permissive, so I'm not sure how "closing" the
repository accomplishes anything (other than making it more likely for
someone to fork your work-in-progress code).

[Archos]

I learn from my mistakes. The next time I'll use GNU A/GPL in long
projects.

But anyway, I'm not worried about it because the compiler is only a
little piece of a product. I am simply protecting my work and my
interests.

[Paul Borman]

Take a look at the old sleepycat licenses.  They were the BSD license for non-commercial and I believe "contact us" for commercial use.

    -Paul

[David Anderson]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Paul Borman <bor...@google.com> wrote:

Take a look at the old sleepycat licenses.  They were the BSD license for non-commercial and I believe "contact us" for commercial use.

That's not an open source license.

[Archos]

On Apr 23, 7:42 pm, Steven Johnson <s...@google.com> wrote:

> TheGoScriptproject in github had an Apache 2.0 license associated

> with it; that's pretty permissive, so I'm not sure how "closing" the
> repository accomplishes anything (other than making it more likely for
> someone to fork your work-in-progress code).

In order to leave it clearly, all GoScript project was not licensed
under Apache 2.0.

"Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two
elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such
as “Copyright 2012 Slash”), and a statement of copying permission,
saying that the program is distributed under the terms of a license."

All files in directories "_test" and "_pkg" had not those two elements
so it means that it's copyrighted to its creator (me).

[Jan Mercl]

I think the subject issue already may have convinced some people to never look at any of your "published" code again. No need to reinforce that even further by stating it actually never was FOSS anyway ;-)

[Rémy Oudompheng]

Le 26 avril 2012 22:43, Archos <raul...@sent.com> a écrit :
> In order to leave it clearly, all GoScript project was not licensed
> under Apache 2.0.
>
> "Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two
> elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such
> as “Copyright 2012 Slash”), and a statement of copying permission,
> saying that the program is distributed under the terms of a license."
>
> All files in directories "_test" and "_pkg" had not those two elements
> so it means that it's copyrighted to its creator (me).

It's weird that not adding a copyright notice makes it copyrighted.
Free software or Open source licenses are not about stealing your
work, but publishing and spreading it. Making works free or open
source does not change the fact that you are the original author of
the code.

Rémy.

[Archos]

On Apr 26, 11:08 pm, Rémy Oudompheng <remyoudomph...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 26 avril 2012 22:43, Archos <raul....@sent.com> a écrit :
>
> > In order to leave it clearly, all GoScript project was not licensed
> > under Apache 2.0.
>
> > "Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two
> > elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such
> > as “Copyright 2012 Slash”), and a statement of copying permission,
> > saying that the program is distributed under the terms of a license."
>
> > All files in directories "_test" and "_pkg" had not those two elements
> > so it means that it's copyrighted to its creator (me).
>
> It's weird that not adding a copyright notice makes it copyrighted.

Well, the copyright laws are weird else check the Copyright Term
Extension Act related to Disney.
If you have any doubt related to this subject then you could question
it to Free Software Foundation; I did it.

[Aram Hăvărneanu]

What a charade.

--
Aram Hăvărneanu

[Archos]

On Apr 26, 9:56 pm, Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the subject issue already may have convinced some people to never
> look at any of your "published" code again. No need to reinforce that even
> further by stating it actually never was FOSS anyway ;-)

It's an advice for that nobody works into a fork since my program will
be free to use, although the *repository* is closed now.

People is free to use JS directly, or whatever compiler that
transforms to JS, or my compiler from Go. That's not my business
neither I'm worried about it; my business is to build a great product
which can compile (almost) whatever Go package (excepting related to
cgo, networking, os, ...)

[Archos]

On Apr 26, 11:31 pm, Aram Hăvărneanu <ara...@mgk.ro> wrote:
> What a charade.
It's as charade as that every Go's source file has not both copyright
notice and statement of copying permission.

[Aram Hăvărneanu]

Archos wrote:
> It's an advice for that nobody works into a fork since my program will
> be free to use, although the *repository* is closed now.

The only reason your users don't run away from you after you made all
these statements is that you have no users.

Nobody cares about any of your projects. Your delusion of grandeur is
magistrally surreal. On this list you only found people that tried to
help and guide you. They did this not because they cared about you or
your projects, but because they are good people that help
unconditionally. This narcissistic extravaganza of yours is a insult
to everyone who has tried to help you. Shame on you.

Please have the decency of stopping this charade.

--
Aram Hăvărneanu

[Jim Whitehead II]

Given the public threads in which you discussed the particular
transformations from Go to Javascript, where you showed a clear
misunderstanding (in several cases) of the semantics of the Go
programming language, can you honestly claim that you hold sole
copyright to the code that exists within your compiler? I suspect not.

I'm sympathetic, as someone who has previously had to close open
source projects due to third party distributers that did not abide by
my wishes (but were well within the license). It happens, and one can
both contribute code to the community in a positive way, while still
leaving open the possibility of making money on the code where
appropriate.

Closing the repository accomplishes almost nothing. You would be much
better off thinking clearly about the license you'd like and making a
decision one way or the other. Your source will need to be available
for any real project to make use of it.

I absolutely respect your right to do development in a closed
environment as you decide what makes the best sense for your
particular projects. But the misinformation and misguided license
evangelism in this thread is just confusing and disheartening.

- Jim

[Archos]

On Apr 27, 12:05 am, Jim Whitehead II <jnwhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given the public threads in which you discussed the particular
> transformations from Go to Javascript, where you showed a clear
> misunderstanding (in several cases) of the semantics of the Go
> programming language, can you honestly claim that you hold sole
> copyright to the code that exists within your compiler? I suspect not.

I affirm that yes. If you find where I violate the copyright of
somebody please you say me and I'll change my code.

> Closing the repository accomplishes almost nothing. You would be much
> better off thinking clearly about the license you'd like and making a
> decision one way or the other. Your source will need to be available
> for any real project to make use of it.

Closing the repository accomplishes avoid external interferences while
I continue with the work. Now, I want not code of nobody in my project
to hold the full control about the license since there is a business
interested in my project.

It's so simple like that. If I can sell my product to that company by
a very good price then I'll do, if I become to agree.

> I absolutely respect your right to do development in a closed
> environment as you decide what makes the best sense for your
> particular projects. But the misinformation and misguided license
> evangelism in this thread is just confusing and disheartening.

My fail.

[Archos]

On Apr 27, 12:05 am, Jim Whitehead II <jnwhi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Given the public threads in which you discussed the particular
> transformations from Go to Javascript, where you showed a clear
> misunderstanding (in several cases) of the semantics of the Go
> programming language, can you honestly claim that you hold sole
> copyright to the code that exists within your compiler? I suspect not.
>
> I'm sympathetic, as someone who has previously had to close open
> source projects due to third party distributers that did not abide by
> my wishes (but were well within the license). It happens, and one can
> both contribute code to the community in a positive way, while still
> leaving open the possibility of making money on the code where
> appropriate.
>
> Closing the repository accomplishes almost nothing. You would be much
> better off thinking clearly about the license you'd like and making a
> decision one way or the other. Your source will need to be available
> for any real project to make use of it.
>
> I absolutely respect your right to do development in a closed
> environment as you decide what makes the best sense for your
> particular projects. But the misinformation and misguided license
> evangelism in this thread is just confusing and disheartening.

I understand that you can be sick (of some way), and it's very
possible that you've forgotten to take your medication, so you should
rest and relax, my friend.

[Archos]

Jim Whitehead, that was not for you else for Aram.

[Devon H. O'Dell]

Can we please end this off-topic and now mildly upsetting thread? Thanks.