Of course Go is an open source tool, and Google has no plans to use
patents to restrict any use of Go. Adding this text makes that
intention into an explicit legal permission. This is intended to
alleviate legal concerns about using Go by other organizations.
While the above is the intention, any lawyers should instead read the
exact addition to the LICENSE file, which is:
// Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google hereby
// grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
// royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent
// license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and
// otherwise transfer this implementation of Go, where such license
// applies only to those patent claims licensable by Google that are
// necessarily infringed by use of this implementation of Go. If You
// institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
// cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this
// implementation of Go or a Contribution incorporated within this
// implementation of Go constitutes direct or contributory patent
// infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this
// License for this implementation of Go shall terminate as of the date
// such litigation is filed.
Ian
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
> Great license how ever please excuse my ignorance: Why did you feel
> that you had to rewrite terms that are already spelled out in the GPL?
> Note that while patents are seen as a plague to software and
> specifically free-software Red Hat for instance does have some
> patents. Further the GPL's language is I am sure you know NOT non-
> exclusive to patent holders and makes all of your stated claims.
> Lastly find the duplication of terms in these licenses and the mixing
> of code from their programs confusing and disheartening.
>
> What am I missing?
You may be missing the fact that Go is not under the GPL.
Ian