FAQ
is Go suitable for the application of statistics and analysis of big data?
is meet the challenges of big
data http://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/node/556

--

Search Discussions

  • Kyle Lemons at Dec 20, 2012 at 12:28 am
    I think Go is a great choice for analysis of large data, especially in
    offline pipelines where you're not looking to eke out the last few percent
    of performance.

    On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:23 PM, likelihood wrote:

    is Go suitable for the application of statistics and analysis of big data?
    is meet the challenges of big data
    http://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/node/556

    --

    --
  • Miki Tebeka at Dec 20, 2012 at 1:55 am
    I think Go might be in the future, currently it has to do a lot of catch up
    to do with SciPy, R and others.
    On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:23:07 PM UTC-8, likelihood wrote:

    is Go suitable for the application of statistics and analysis of big data?
    is meet the challenges of big data
    http://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/node/556
    --
  • Michael Jones at Dec 20, 2012 at 3:35 am
    What do you mean? Missing features in Go or just libraries?
    On Dec 19, 2012 5:56 PM, "Miki Tebeka" wrote:

    I think Go might be in the future, currently it has to do a lot of catch
    up to do with SciPy, R and others.
    On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:23:07 PM UTC-8, likelihood wrote:

    is Go suitable for the application of statistics and analysis of big data?
    is meet the challenges of big data http://blogs.worldbank.**
    org/opendata/node/556 <http://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/node/556>
    --

    --
  • Miki Tebeka at Dec 20, 2012 at 3:41 am
    Libraries. And IMO it's not "just", NumPy for example is about 17 years
    old, R is about 15 ...
    On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:35:37 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:

    What do you mean? Missing features in Go or just libraries?
    On Dec 19, 2012 5:56 PM, "Miki Tebeka" <miki....@gmail.com <javascript:>>
    wrote:
    I think Go might be in the future, currently it has to do a lot of catch
    up to do with SciPy, R and others.
    On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:23:07 PM UTC-8, likelihood wrote:

    is Go suitable for the application of statistics and analysis of big
    data?
    is meet the challenges of big data http://blogs.worldbank.**
    org/opendata/node/556 <http://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/node/556>
    --

    --
  • Michael Jones at Dec 20, 2012 at 6:00 am
    No argument about strength and utility of libraries, just asking about
    perceptions of unsuitably in the language itself. That's the main thing at
    this point.
    On Dec 19, 2012 7:41 PM, "Miki Tebeka" wrote:

    Libraries. And IMO it's not "just", NumPy for example is about 17 years
    old, R is about 15 ...
    On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:35:37 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:

    What do you mean? Missing features in Go or just libraries?
    On Dec 19, 2012 5:56 PM, "Miki Tebeka" wrote:

    I think Go might be in the future, currently it has to do a lot of catch
    up to do with SciPy, R and others.
    On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:23:07 PM UTC-8, likelihood wrote:

    is Go suitable for the application of statistics and analysis of big
    data?
    is meet the challenges of big data http://blogs.worldbank.**or**
    g/opendata/node/556 <http://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/node/556>
    --

    --
    --
  • Miki Tebeka at Dec 21, 2012 at 12:42 am
    The only thing I can think of (which is not a big deal IMO) is the lack of
    operator overloading which makes the code a bit more verbose.

    Instead of v1 * v2 you'll do v1.dot(v2) and instead of m[x][u] you'll do
    m.At(x, y)
    On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:00:16 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:

    No argument about strength and utility of libraries, just asking about
    perceptions of unsuitably in the language itself. That's the main thing at
    this point.
    On Dec 19, 2012 7:41 PM, "Miki Tebeka" <miki....@gmail.com <javascript:>>
    wrote:
    Libraries. And IMO it's not "just", NumPy for example is about 17 years
    old, R is about 15 ...
    On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:35:37 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:

    What do you mean? Missing features in Go or just libraries?
    On Dec 19, 2012 5:56 PM, "Miki Tebeka" wrote:

    I think Go might be in the future, currently it has to do a lot of
    catch up to do with SciPy, R and others.
    On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:23:07 PM UTC-8, likelihood wrote:

    is Go suitable for the application of statistics and analysis of big
    data?
    is meet the challenges of big data http://blogs.worldbank.**or**
    g/opendata/node/556 <http://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/node/556>
    --

    --
    --
  • Rui Maciel at Dec 21, 2012 at 2:32 am

    On 12/21/2012 12:42 AM, Miki Tebeka wrote:
    The only thing I can think of (which is not a big deal IMO) is the lack of
    operator overloading which makes the code a bit more verbose.

    Instead of v1 * v2 you'll do v1.dot(v2) and instead of m[x][u] you'll do
    m.At(x, y)
    Operator overloading tends not to be used in number crunching
    applications, particularly with regards to linear algebra. As each set
    of operations tends to be implemented through specialized algorithms
    which are highly optimized, they aren't adequately expressed through
    overloaded operators. Therefore, functions are used extensively.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Linear_Algebra_Subprograms


    Rui Maciel

    --
  • Dan Kortschak at Dec 21, 2012 at 5:11 am
    On this note, there is the start of a BLAS library in Go, but only level 1 functions are supported:

    https://github.com/ziutek/blas
    On 21/12/2012, at 1:02 PM, "Rui Maciel" wrote:
    On 12/21/2012 12:42 AM, Miki Tebeka wrote:
    The only thing I can think of (which is not a big deal IMO) is the lack of
    operator overloading which makes the code a bit more verbose.

    Instead of v1 * v2 you'll do v1.dot(v2) and instead of m[x][u] you'll do
    m.At(x, y)
    Operator overloading tends not to be used in number crunching applications, particularly with regards to linear algebra. As each set of operations tends to be implemented through specialized algorithms which are highly optimized, they aren't adequately expressed through overloaded operators. Therefore, functions are used extensively.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Linear_Algebra_Subprograms


    Rui Maciel

    --
    --
  • Gerard at Dec 20, 2012 at 7:55 pm
    I translated the Gnu Scientific Library Statistics package to Go. See
    https://github.com/grd/statistics

    Of course without the preprocessor bloat. It uses interfaces instead.

    Gerard
    --
  • Dan Kortschak at Dec 20, 2012 at 8:31 pm
    Cool.

    Comments:
    The Float64 and Int64 types don't need to have methods on pointers since the slices aren't resized.
    Is there a LICENSE file?

    On 21/12/2012, at 6:25 AM, "Gerard" wrote:

    I translated the Gnu Scientific Library Statistics package to Go. See https://github.com/grd/statistics

    Of course without the preprocessor bloat. It uses interfaces instead.

    Gerard

    --


    --
  • Gerard at Dec 20, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    Comments:

    The Float64 and Int64 types don't need to have methods on pointers since
    the slices aren't resized.
    Is there a LICENSE file?
    Thanks for the remarks. You are right. However when benchmarking, it showed
    that using pointers was actually faster. I must figure out how the inlining
    of functions with slices *exactly* works (with assembly code) before I
    change the source code.

    Licensing? GPL, since the source is GPL. Sorry about that. I will add it
    this weekend.

    Gerard

    --
  • Kamil Kisiel at Dec 20, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    On Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:50:03 PM UTC-8, Gerard wrote:

    Comments:
    The Float64 and Int64 types don't need to have methods on pointers since
    the slices aren't resized.
    Is there a LICENSE file?
    Thanks for the remarks. You are right. However when benchmarking, it
    showed that using pointers was actually faster. I must figure out how the
    inlining of functions with slices *exactly* works (with assembly code)
    before I change the source code.

    Licensing? GPL, since the source is GPL. Sorry about that. I will add it
    this weekend.

    Gerard
    Note that the source files say "BSD-style license" in the comments at the
    top.

    --
  • Gerard at Dec 20, 2012 at 9:52 pm
    You're right. I'll change that.

    --
  • Gerard at Dec 22, 2012 at 6:18 am
    I just pulled back my code. Use that of John Asmuth instead.

    While studying the library I never really looked at the GPL. Now that I
    read it, I don't want anything to do with it. It spreads like a rimple (or
    a virus). I refuse to release the code under GPL.

    I also pulled back the ogg/vorbis code because of it's GPL roots.

    Gerard


    --
  • Dan Kortschak at Dec 22, 2012 at 6:43 am
    Would you put up a file that is the output of godoc github.com/grd/statistics?<http://github.com/grd/statistics?> This would be an API and so as I understand it not subject to copyright. Having an API that matches the GNU statistics package that people could add to under another license might be worth while.

    Dan

    On 22/12/2012, at 4:48 PM, "Gerard" wrote:

    I just pulled back my code. Use that of John Asmuth instead.

    While studying the library I never really looked at the GPL. Now that I read it, I don't want anything to do with it. It spreads like a rimple (or a virus). I refuse to release the code under GPL.

    I also pulled back the ogg/vorbis code because of it's GPL roots.

    Gerard



    --


    --
  • Minux at Dec 22, 2012 at 8:33 am

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Gerard wrote:

    I just pulled back my code. Use that of John Asmuth instead.

    While studying the library I never really looked at the GPL. Now that I
    read it, I don't want anything to do with it. It spreads like a rimple (or
    a virus). I refuse to release the code under GPL.

    I also pulled back the ogg/vorbis code because of it's GPL roots.
    so you just removed the repository from github?

    --
  • Gerard at Dec 22, 2012 at 8:53 am
    Do you have any better idea? It is derived work and GPL is very clear in
    that.

    GPL also states that any program that uses GPL code must be licensed as
    GPL. So I think it's better to just remove it at all.
    --
  • Thomas Bushnell, BSG at Dec 22, 2012 at 8:55 am
    No, it does not. This is not the place for complex legal discussions, but
    you're sliding quickly over some important distinctions.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Do you have any better idea? It is derived work and GPL is very clear in
    that.

    GPL also states that any program that uses GPL code must be licensed as
    GPL. So I think it's better to just remove it at all.
    --
    --
  • Gerard at Dec 22, 2012 at 9:03 am
    Ok. I agree this is not the place for legal stuff. But if I want to
    translate software from C to Go and it's GPL, how should I handle it than?

    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 09:55:14 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell, BSG
    het volgende:
    No, it does not. This is not the place for complex legal discussions, but
    you're sliding quickly over some important distinctions.


    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Gerard <gvds...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
    Do you have any better idea? It is derived work and GPL is very clear in
    that.

    GPL also states that any program that uses GPL code must be licensed as
    GPL. So I think it's better to just remove it at all.
    --
    --
  • Thomas Bushnell, BSG at Dec 22, 2012 at 9:06 am
    License it under the GPL is the most common way. I'm not sure why you balk
    at that; the GPL offers a different mix of rights and responsibilities than
    does the BSD license or the Microsoft Windows license, to pick two. It
    doesn't restrict your right to translate the code to Go if you wish and
    distribute it. Make your own decision.

    However, the *use *of the code (as opposed to its copying or modification)
    is not restricted by the GPL.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Ok. I agree this is not the place for legal stuff. But if I want to
    translate software from C to Go and it's GPL, how should I handle it than?

    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 09:55:14 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell, BSG
    het volgende:
    No, it does not. This is not the place for complex legal discussions, but
    you're sliding quickly over some important distinctions.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Do you have any better idea? It is derived work and GPL is very clear in
    that.

    GPL also states that any program that uses GPL code must be licensed as
    GPL. So I think it's better to just remove it at all.
    --
    --
    --
  • Gerard at Dec 22, 2012 at 9:19 am
    Ok, I was to abrupt in removing the repositories. Sorry about that. I fix
    it right away. But the question remains: If I translate code from C to Go
    can I distribute it under BSD (and give the credits of the original authors
    in the readme file) or must I still use GPL and only add a line of comment
    that I translated it?



    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 10:06:08 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell, BSG
    het volgende:
    License it under the GPL is the most common way. I'm not sure why you balk
    at that; the GPL offers a different mix of rights and responsibilities than
    does the BSD license or the Microsoft Windows license, to pick two. It
    doesn't restrict your right to translate the code to Go if you wish and
    distribute it. Make your own decision.

    However, the *use *of the code (as opposed to its copying or
    modification) is not restricted by the GPL.


    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Gerard <gvds...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
    Ok. I agree this is not the place for legal stuff. But if I want to
    translate software from C to Go and it's GPL, how should I handle it than?

    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 09:55:14 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell, BSG
    het volgende:
    No, it does not. This is not the place for complex legal discussions,
    but you're sliding quickly over some important distinctions.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Do you have any better idea? It is derived work and GPL is very clear
    in that.

    GPL also states that any program that uses GPL code must be licensed as
    GPL. So I think it's better to just remove it at all.
    --
    --
    --
  • Minux at Dec 22, 2012 at 9:58 am

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Gerard wrote:

    Ok, I was to abrupt in removing the repositories. Sorry about that. I fix
    it right away. But the question remains: If I translate code from C to Go
    can I distribute it under BSD (and give the credits of the original authors
    in the readme file) or must I still use GPL and only add a line of comment
    that I translated it?
    IIUC, if you don't use a single line from the original GPLed code (not even
    comment/docs), you can release it under whatever license you choose.

    --
  • Dan Kortschak at Dec 22, 2012 at 10:49 am
    This is why I was suggesting publishing the godoc for the package Gerard
    wrote. The function/method signatures and types would constitute an API
    and so (after the recent Oracle/Google decision) probably not be subject
    to copyright (at least in the US).

    Dan
    On Sat, 2012-12-22 at 17:58 +0800, minux wrote:
    IIUC, if you don't use a single line from the original GPLed code (not
    even
    comment/docs), you can release it under whatever license you choose.

    --
  • Gerard at Dec 22, 2012 at 11:11 am
    What exactly do you mean with publishing the godoc?


    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 11:49:29 UTC+1 schreef kortschak het volgende:
    This is why I was suggesting publishing the godoc for the package Gerard
    wrote. The function/method signatures and types would constitute an API
    and so (after the recent Oracle/Google decision) probably not be subject
    to copyright (at least in the US).

    Dan
    On Sat, 2012-12-22 at 17:58 +0800, minux wrote:
    IIUC, if you don't use a single line from the original GPLed code (not
    even
    comment/docs), you can release it under whatever license you choose.
    --
  • Dan Kortschak at Dec 22, 2012 at 11:23 am
    If someone write a work-alike piece of code, that is not subject to the
    license. The only way to specify a work-alike is to have the API and
    description of the behaviour. The behaviour is pretty self explanatory
    for a stats package, and the API is described in the output of godoc for
    the package.

    If you have a document that is the output of godoc for grd/statistics
    then people who have not worked from the GNU code can implement the
    functions (which are generally simple) without being affected by the
    GPL.
    On Sat, 2012-12-22 at 03:11 -0800, Gerard wrote:
    What exactly do you mean with publishing the godoc?

    --
  • Gerard at Dec 22, 2012 at 11:49 am
    Ok, if I understand correctly you mean reverse engineering with only the
    interfaces at hand. That's a known and proven concept. I think I will do
    that in the future. It also saves a lot of time when you don't have to deal
    with all the preprocessor or C++ stuff. However at the moment for the stats
    package that's not the case.

    --
  • Thomas Bushnell, BSG at Dec 22, 2012 at 3:33 pm
    It is certainly a derived work, and if you distribute it (a different
    question from using it) it needs to be under the GPL.
    On Dec 22, 2012 1:19 AM, "Gerard" wrote:

    Ok, I was to abrupt in removing the repositories. Sorry about that. I fix
    it right away. But the question remains: If I translate code from C to Go
    can I distribute it under BSD (and give the credits of the original authors
    in the readme file) or must I still use GPL and only add a line of comment
    that I translated it?



    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 10:06:08 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell, BSG
    het volgende:
    License it under the GPL is the most common way. I'm not sure why you
    balk at that; the GPL offers a different mix of rights and responsibilities
    than does the BSD license or the Microsoft Windows license, to pick two. It
    doesn't restrict your right to translate the code to Go if you wish and
    distribute it. Make your own decision.

    However, the *use *of the code (as opposed to its copying or
    modification) is not restricted by the GPL.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Ok. I agree this is not the place for legal stuff. But if I want to
    translate software from C to Go and it's GPL, how should I handle it than?

    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 09:55:14 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell, BSG
    het volgende:
    No, it does not. This is not the place for complex legal discussions,
    but you're sliding quickly over some important distinctions.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Do you have any better idea? It is derived work and GPL is very clear
    in that.

    GPL also states that any program that uses GPL code must be licensed
    as GPL. So I think it's better to just remove it at all.
    --
    --
    --
    --
  • Gerard at Dec 22, 2012 at 4:20 pm
    Yes of course it it derived work. I already said that.

    What I didn't know until yesterday was that GPL states the following (from
    http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/):

    --------------------

    Some answers to common questions about the license:

    *If I write an application which uses GSL, am I forced to distribute that
    application?*
    No. The license gives you the option to distribute your application if you
    want to. You do not have to exercise this option in the license.

    *If I wanted to distribute an application which uses GSL, what license
    would I need to use?*
    The GNU General Public License (GPL).

    The bottom line for commercial users:

    GSL can be used internally ("in-house") without restriction, but only
    redistributed in other software that is under the GNU GPL.

    -----------------------------

    This means that this so called "freedom" restricts useage. This in contrast
    to the BSD license. Not that I intend any commercial usage because the
    coding is just a hobby, but it is the principal. I didn't know it goes that
    far. If I did, I wouldn't have start it to begin with.




    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 16:33:22 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell, BSG
    het volgende:
    It is certainly a derived work, and if you distribute it (a different
    question from using it) it needs to be under the GPL.
    On Dec 22, 2012 1:19 AM, "Gerard" <gvds...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote:

    Ok, I was to abrupt in removing the repositories. Sorry about that. I fix
    it right away. But the question remains: If I translate code from C to Go
    can I distribute it under BSD (and give the credits of the original authors
    in the readme file) or must I still use GPL and only add a line of comment
    that I translated it?



    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 10:06:08 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell, BSG
    het volgende:
    License it under the GPL is the most common way. I'm not sure why you
    balk at that; the GPL offers a different mix of rights and responsibilities
    than does the BSD license or the Microsoft Windows license, to pick two. It
    doesn't restrict your right to translate the code to Go if you wish and
    distribute it. Make your own decision.

    However, the *use *of the code (as opposed to its copying or
    modification) is not restricted by the GPL.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Ok. I agree this is not the place for legal stuff. But if I want to
    translate software from C to Go and it's GPL, how should I handle it than?

    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 09:55:14 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell,
    BSG het volgende:
    No, it does not. This is not the place for complex legal discussions,
    but you're sliding quickly over some important distinctions.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Do you have any better idea? It is derived work and GPL is very clear
    in that.

    GPL also states that any program that uses GPL code must be licensed
    as GPL. So I think it's better to just remove it at all.
    --
    --
    --
    --
  • Thomas Bushnell, BSG at Dec 22, 2012 at 4:46 pm
    No, it does not restrict *use, *it restricts *distribution. *You can use it
    without *distributing* it. And it *certainly *doesn't restrict commercial
    distribution; it restricts *restricted *distribution.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Yes of course it it derived work. I already said that.

    What I didn't know until yesterday was that GPL states the following (from
    http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/):

    --------------------

    Some answers to common questions about the license:

    *If I write an application which uses GSL, am I forced to distribute that
    application?*
    No. The license gives you the option to distribute your application if you
    want to. You do not have to exercise this option in the license.

    *If I wanted to distribute an application which uses GSL, what license
    would I need to use?*
    The GNU General Public License (GPL).

    The bottom line for commercial users:

    GSL can be used internally ("in-house") without restriction, but only
    redistributed in other software that is under the GNU GPL.

    -----------------------------

    This means that this so called "freedom" restricts useage. This in
    contrast to the BSD license. Not that I intend any commercial usage because
    the coding is just a hobby, but it is the principal. I didn't know it goes
    that far. If I did, I wouldn't have start it to begin with.




    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 16:33:22 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell, BSG
    het volgende:
    It is certainly a derived work, and if you distribute it (a different
    question from using it) it needs to be under the GPL.
    On Dec 22, 2012 1:19 AM, "Gerard" wrote:

    Ok, I was to abrupt in removing the repositories. Sorry about that. I
    fix it right away. But the question remains: If I translate code from C to
    Go can I distribute it under BSD (and give the credits of the original
    authors in the readme file) or must I still use GPL and only add a line of
    comment that I translated it?



    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 10:06:08 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell, BSG
    het volgende:
    License it under the GPL is the most common way. I'm not sure why you
    balk at that; the GPL offers a different mix of rights and responsibilities
    than does the BSD license or the Microsoft Windows license, to pick two. It
    doesn't restrict your right to translate the code to Go if you wish and
    distribute it. Make your own decision.

    However, the *use *of the code (as opposed to its copying or
    modification) is not restricted by the GPL.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Ok. I agree this is not the place for legal stuff. But if I want to
    translate software from C to Go and it's GPL, how should I handle it than?

    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 09:55:14 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell,
    BSG het volgende:
    No, it does not. This is not the place for complex legal discussions,
    but you're sliding quickly over some important distinctions.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Do you have any better idea? It is derived work and GPL is very
    clear in that.

    GPL also states that any program that uses GPL code must be licensed
    as GPL. So I think it's better to just remove it at all.
    --
    --
    --
    --
    --
  • Gerard at Dec 23, 2012 at 8:36 am
    Ok, I get that (except the part of "restricted distribution").

    But what does it mean in practice?

    Suppose I coded an app(lication). The app has 20 Go source files and uses 3
    packages. It is placed on github.com or whatever (distributed).

    The app is BSD licensed. The license file is placed in the main directory
    and each source file contains the 3 lines of BSD license text and the
    copyright notice.

    Now I want to use *one* GPL licensed package.

    Does this means that I *should* add the GPL license file in the main
    directory and also add the 14 lines of GPL license text to *each* source
    file?



    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 17:46:41 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell, BSG
    het volgende:
    No, it does not restrict *use, *it restricts *distribution. *You can use
    it without *distributing* it. And it *certainly *doesn't restrict
    commercial distribution; it restricts *restricted *distribution.


    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Gerard <gvds...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
    Yes of course it it derived work. I already said that.

    What I didn't know until yesterday was that GPL states the following
    (from http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/):

    --------------------

    Some answers to common questions about the license:

    *If I write an application which uses GSL, am I forced to distribute
    that application?*
    No. The license gives you the option to distribute your application if
    you want to. You do not have to exercise this option in the license.

    *If I wanted to distribute an application which uses GSL, what license
    would I need to use?*
    The GNU General Public License (GPL).

    The bottom line for commercial users:

    GSL can be used internally ("in-house") without restriction, but only
    redistributed in other software that is under the GNU GPL.

    -----------------------------

    This means that this so called "freedom" restricts useage. This in
    contrast to the BSD license. Not that I intend any commercial usage because
    the coding is just a hobby, but it is the principal. I didn't know it goes
    that far. If I did, I wouldn't have start it to begin with.




    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 16:33:22 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell, BSG
    het volgende:
    It is certainly a derived work, and if you distribute it (a different
    question from using it) it needs to be under the GPL.
    On Dec 22, 2012 1:19 AM, "Gerard" wrote:

    Ok, I was to abrupt in removing the repositories. Sorry about that. I
    fix it right away. But the question remains: If I translate code from C to
    Go can I distribute it under BSD (and give the credits of the original
    authors in the readme file) or must I still use GPL and only add a line of
    comment that I translated it?



    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 10:06:08 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell,
    BSG het volgende:
    License it under the GPL is the most common way. I'm not sure why you
    balk at that; the GPL offers a different mix of rights and responsibilities
    than does the BSD license or the Microsoft Windows license, to pick two. It
    doesn't restrict your right to translate the code to Go if you wish and
    distribute it. Make your own decision.

    However, the *use *of the code (as opposed to its copying or
    modification) is not restricted by the GPL.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Ok. I agree this is not the place for legal stuff. But if I want to
    translate software from C to Go and it's GPL, how should I handle it than?

    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 09:55:14 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell,
    BSG het volgende:
    No, it does not. This is not the place for complex legal
    discussions, but you're sliding quickly over some important distinctions.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Do you have any better idea? It is derived work and GPL is very
    clear in that.

    GPL also states that any program that uses GPL code must be
    licensed as GPL. So I think it's better to just remove it at all.
    --
    --
    --
    --
    --
  • Thomas Bushnell, BSG at Dec 23, 2012 at 3:00 pm
    You keep saying "use". You mean distribute. The GPL compliance folks at the
    FSF are the best ones to ask for details, not this list. But don't say
    "use." Say what you're actually doing... distributing, linking to, copying,
    running, whatever.

    The general rule is that if you link to a GPLd library, you cannot
    distribute your program under terms more restrictive than the GPL. But you
    are not, in general, required to put your program under the GPL itself, as
    long as the whole is still always distributed with source, etc.
    On Dec 23, 2012 12:36 AM, "Gerard" wrote:

    Ok, I get that (except the part of "restricted distribution").

    But what does it mean in practice?

    Suppose I coded an app(lication). The app has 20 Go source files and uses
    3 packages. It is placed on github.com or whatever (distributed).

    The app is BSD licensed. The license file is placed in the main directory
    and each source file contains the 3 lines of BSD license text and the
    copyright notice.

    Now I want to use *one* GPL licensed package.

    Does this means that I *should* add the GPL license file in the main
    directory and also add the 14 lines of GPL license text to *each* source
    file?



    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 17:46:41 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell, BSG
    het volgende:
    No, it does not restrict *use, *it restricts *distribution. *You can use
    it without *distributing* it. And it *certainly *doesn't restrict
    commercial distribution; it restricts *restricted *distribution.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Yes of course it it derived work. I already said that.

    What I didn't know until yesterday was that GPL states the following
    (from http://www.gnu.org/software/**gsl/<http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/>
    ):

    --------------------

    Some answers to common questions about the license:

    *If I write an application which uses GSL, am I forced to distribute
    that application?*
    No. The license gives you the option to distribute your application if
    you want to. You do not have to exercise this option in the license.

    *If I wanted to distribute an application which uses GSL, what license
    would I need to use?*
    The GNU General Public License (GPL).

    The bottom line for commercial users:

    GSL can be used internally ("in-house") without restriction, but only
    redistributed in other software that is under the GNU GPL.

    -----------------------------

    This means that this so called "freedom" restricts useage. This in
    contrast to the BSD license. Not that I intend any commercial usage because
    the coding is just a hobby, but it is the principal. I didn't know it goes
    that far. If I did, I wouldn't have start it to begin with.




    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 16:33:22 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell, BSG
    het volgende:
    It is certainly a derived work, and if you distribute it (a different
    question from using it) it needs to be under the GPL.
    On Dec 22, 2012 1:19 AM, "Gerard" wrote:

    Ok, I was to abrupt in removing the repositories. Sorry about that. I
    fix it right away. But the question remains: If I translate code from C to
    Go can I distribute it under BSD (and give the credits of the original
    authors in the readme file) or must I still use GPL and only add a line of
    comment that I translated it?



    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 10:06:08 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell,
    BSG het volgende:
    License it under the GPL is the most common way. I'm not sure why you
    balk at that; the GPL offers a different mix of rights and responsibilities
    than does the BSD license or the Microsoft Windows license, to pick two. It
    doesn't restrict your right to translate the code to Go if you wish and
    distribute it. Make your own decision.

    However, the *use *of the code (as opposed to its copying or
    modification) is not restricted by the GPL.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Ok. I agree this is not the place for legal stuff. But if I want to
    translate software from C to Go and it's GPL, how should I handle it than?

    Op zaterdag 22 december 2012 09:55:14 UTC+1 schreef Thomas Bushnell,
    BSG het volgende:
    No, it does not. This is not the place for complex legal
    discussions, but you're sliding quickly over some important distinctions.

    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Gerard wrote:

    Do you have any better idea? It is derived work and GPL is very
    clear in that.

    GPL also states that any program that uses GPL code must be
    licensed as GPL. So I think it's better to just remove it at all.
    --
    --
    --
    --
    --
    --
  • Andy Balholm at Dec 24, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    On Sunday, December 23, 2012 12:36:28 AM UTC-8, Gerard wrote:

    Suppose I coded an app(lication). The app has 20 Go source files and uses
    3 packages. It is placed on github.com or whatever (distributed).

    The app is BSD licensed. The license file is placed in the main directory
    and each source file contains the 3 lines of BSD license text and the
    copyright notice.

    Now I want to use *one* GPL licensed package.

    Does this means that I *should* add the GPL license file in the main
    directory and also add the 14 lines of GPL license text to *each* source
    file?
    No, your source files are not derived works of the GPL-licensed package. So
    you can still distribute your source under the BSD license.

    But once the source is compiled, the binary *is* a derived work of the
    GPL-licensed package. So the binary can only be distributed under the GPL.
    And if you distribute the binary, you are required to make the sources
    available under the GPL too. Since the BSD license is GPL-compatible, this
    is not a big deal.

    What gets tricky is when the license for the source is not GPL-compatible.
    For example, there is a ZFS module for the Linux kernel. The ZFS source
    code from Sun is licensed under the CDDL, which is not compatible with the
    GPL. The Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL. The source of this module
    can be distributed, but compiled binaries cannot—because distributing them
    would make the source subject to the GPL, and only Sun (or rather Oracle,
    now) has the authority to do that, because their CDDL does not give users
    the right to re-license the code.

    --
  • Tim Harig at Dec 22, 2012 at 3:48 pm
    I accidently replied to Mr. Bushnell directly instead of a list reply.
    Thought that I would let the rest of the list see.
    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 07:35:18AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
    The FSF regarded the LGPL as a failure, so I think it's unlikely to happen.
    On Dec 22, 2012 4:06 AM, "Tim Harig" wrote:
    On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:55:14AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
    No, it does not. This is not the place for complex legal discussions, but
    you're sliding quickly over some important distinctions.
    I do wonder however if anybody has created a Go friendly version of the
    LGPL. There are some of us that want to retain GPL like rights, for
    keeping modifications of a library available to the community, without
    prohibiting the libraries use in proprietary software. I know there are
    currently practical implications of this due to GC Go's lack of shared
    library support. I wonder if there is somebody in the community with
    enough legal background or connections to create an LGPL like license that
    is usable under GC Go's current limitations?
    --
  • Peter A. Cejchan at Jan 27, 2013 at 10:16 am
    I have a fork of John Asmuth's stat, with more probability, statistics, and
    bayesian functions here:
    http://godoc.org/code.google.com/p/probab

    ++pac
    On Thursday, 20 December 2012 20:55:35 UTC+1, Gerard wrote:

    I translated the Gnu Scientific Library Statistics package to Go. See
    https://github.com/grd/statistics

    Of course without the preprocessor bloat. It uses interfaces instead.

    Gerard
    --
  • John Asmuth at Dec 20, 2012 at 1:23 pm
    I'm a PhD student doing machine learning, and I use Go for everything. I
    wrote some libraries to make my life easier.

    https://github.com/skelterjohn/go.matrix
    http://code.google.com/p/gostat

    They don't do everything you need for statistics, because I don't do all
    kinds of statistics.
    On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:23:07 PM UTC-5, likelihood wrote:

    is Go suitable for the application of statistics and analysis of big data?
    is meet the challenges of big data
    http://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/node/556
    --

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupgolang-nuts @
categoriesgo
postedDec 20, '12 at 12:08a
activeJan 27, '13 at 10:16a
posts36
users14
websitegolang.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase