Russ, I apologize for any misunderstanding, but below is the relevant quote from your post. When I suggested in response that godoc.org be returned to the community, Ian asked if anyone would be interested to take it on. My note here was prompted by Ian's query. (Appended is my post to which Ian responded, posing Q's which have not yet been answered.)
It was an oversimplification to say, "Legal advice will ... close godoc.org," but hardly a "grotesque misrepresentation". Redirecting links from godoc.org to another site amounts to closure, IMO. I assume good faith on the part of the Go team in its efforts and communications; please do the same for mine. Most sincerely, Liam *# Why does pkg.go.dev <http://pkg.go.dev> require a detected license to show docs? * *Why doesn't godoc.org <http://godoc.org>?* The teams working on the proxy and on pkg.go.dev have spent a lot of time talking to Google's lawyers about what we can and can't do with Go source code downloaded from the internet. The rule we've been given to follow is that serving a pretty HTML version of the docs is displaying a modified version of the original, and we can only do that if there's a recognized known-good license that gives us that permission. When we adopted godoc.org from Gary Burd back in 2014, it did not occur to any of us to put it through that kind of review. If we had, maybe the community would have gone through this licensing pain earlier. For now we are focusing on making changes to pkg.go.dev rather than correcting past mistakes on godoc.org. (At this point, more scrutiny of what godoc.org does is not likely to have an outcome that anyone likes.) *# What fraction of popular packages don't display on pkg.go.dev <http://pkg.go.dev>?* Right now it looks like pkg.go.dev sees 1,200 modules imported by at least 100 other modules. Of those, it looks like 82 are flagged as not redistributable, so that we can't show their docs. That's under 7%, and we're working to understand that better. If any of those are mistakes on our end, we'll fix them. Another thing that was suggested that I think is a great idea is to change the “no docs available” page to have a command-line to bring up the docs in your own local godoc command. On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 11:38:22 AM UTC-8, Liam Breck wrote: > > Many search services do what godoc.org does, print part of a published > document. It's not generally considered illegal. > > The normal means to protest such use is a DMCA takedown request. Google > publishes data on those it receives at transparencyreport.google.com. > Have you ever received a takedown request re godoc.org? > > Have you heard of any search service which refuses to print full results > for open source projects that don't use one of a certain set of licenses? > > There is no need for the anxious policy re open source docs which you plan > to adopt. If your lawyers are convinced there is, and you can't seek a > second opinion, a Go foundation is a reasonable solution. > > At the very least, hand godoc.org off to a third party. > On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 1:04:05 PM UTC-8, Russ Cox wrote: > > > [go-nuts] Seeking new custodian for godoc.org > > The Go team is the custodian for godoc.org and we are not seeking a new > one. > > > Legal advice will apparently force the Go team to close godoc.org [1] > > This is a grotesque misrepresentation of what I wrote. This is what I > wrote: > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/77796d78-e134-49d6-947e-bbe2471db8f8%40googlegroups.com.
