通过授予 Google 非独占、不可撤销的版权和专利许可，您的剩余权利将不再具有独占性。 Google 将能够从您的贡献中获利，您也一样。您将缩小个人利润的范围，但这从来都不是“权利”。
To what extent does Google own any Go contributions?
You are not required to transfer copyright to Google. You still OWN the copyright.
You are not required to transfer ownership of patents to Google. You still OWN the patents.
In short Google does not OWN any IP that they didn't already own.
But you do grant Google the unlimited right to use and distribute your contributions, and you grant the right to use to downstream folks. Clause 2 covers copyrights, and clause 3 covers patent rights. Moreover you grant this as an irrevocable license (i.e. you cannot change your mind) and for free.
Do they have full rights to profit from these contributions?
There is no such a thing as "a right to profit" in a legal or moral sense. Hence "full rights to profit" is not a valid characterization of the rights that you currently have.
By granting Google non-exclusive, non-revocable copyright and patent licenses, your remaining rights are no longer exclusive. Google will be able to profit your contributions, but so will you. You will have reduced your scope for personal profit, but that was not ever a "right".
Effectively, through the Contributors Agreement you are sharing copyright with Google.
That means, in the end, Google has copyright over the entire codebase. This gives them the right to relicense the codebase however they want should they see fit. (Copyright owner determines license).
The primary goal of the CA is to ensure and assert that the contributor has the rights they are granting to the project (patents, copyright, etc.).
Some projects, for example, would want a patent grant, but are not interested in any copyright, as they have no intention of relicensing the project.
Mind, since the license is BSD, a copyright grant is really just a formality, because of how liberal the BSD license is in the first place.
发布评论
评论（4）
您无需将版权转让给 Google。您仍然拥有版权。
您无需将专利所有权转让给 Google。您仍然拥有专利。
简而言之，谷歌不拥有任何他们尚未拥有的知识产权。
但你确实授予谷歌无限的权利来使用和分发你的贡献，并且你授予下游人员使用的权利。第 2 条涵盖版权，第 3 条涵盖专利权。此外，您将此作为不可撤销的许可（即您不能改变主意）并且免费授予。
不存在法律或道德意义上的“获利权”这样的东西。因此，“完全的利润权”并不是您当前拥有的权利的有效描述。
通过授予 Google 非独占、不可撤销的版权和专利许可，您的剩余权利将不再具有独占性。 Google 将能够从您的贡献中获利，您也一样。您将缩小个人利润的范围，但这从来都不是“权利”。
You are not required to transfer copyright to Google. You still OWN the copyright.
You are not required to transfer ownership of patents to Google. You still OWN the patents.
In short Google does not OWN any IP that they didn't already own.
But you do grant Google the unlimited right to use and distribute your contributions, and you grant the right to use to downstream folks. Clause 2 covers copyrights, and clause 3 covers patent rights. Moreover you grant this as an irrevocable license (i.e. you cannot change your mind) and for free.
There is no such a thing as "a right to profit" in a legal or moral sense. Hence "full rights to profit" is not a valid characterization of the rights that you currently have.
By granting Google non-exclusive, non-revocable copyright and patent licenses, your remaining rights are no longer exclusive. Google will be able to profit your contributions, but so will you. You will have reduced your scope for personal profit, but that was not ever a "right".
不，这只是意味着如果你为谷歌的项目做出贡献，谷歌仍然可以用它做任何他们想做的事。
当然，您是版权所有者。如果您的代码被包含到 Go 中，您就成为
Go 作者的一员。No, it just means that if you contribute to Google's project, Google can still do whatever they want with it.
You are the copyright holder, of course. If your code gets included into Go, you become part of
The Go Authors.这是当今的常见做法。
实际上，通过贡献者协议，您将与 Google 共享版权。
这意味着，最终，谷歌拥有整个代码库的版权。这使他们有权在他们认为合适的情况下以任何他们想要的方式重新许可代码库。 （版权所有者决定许可）。
CA 的主要目标是确保并主张贡献者拥有他们授予项目的权利（专利、版权等）。
例如，有些项目希望获得专利授权，但对任何版权不感兴趣，因为他们无意重新许可该项目。
请注意，由于许可证是 BSD，版权授予实际上只是一种形式，因为 BSD 许可证首先是多么自由。
This is a common practice nowadays.
Effectively, through the Contributors Agreement you are sharing copyright with Google.
That means, in the end, Google has copyright over the entire codebase. This gives them the right to relicense the codebase however they want should they see fit. (Copyright owner determines license).
The primary goal of the CA is to ensure and assert that the contributor has the rights they are granting to the project (patents, copyright, etc.).
Some projects, for example, would want a patent grant, but are not interested in any copyright, as they have no intention of relicensing the project.
Mind, since the license is BSD, a copyright grant is really just a formality, because of how liberal the BSD license is in the first place.
免责声明：我不是律师
意味着如果您的贡献中的某些内容拥有专利，您就可以允许 Google 使用它，而不必担心 IP 垃圾。
换句话说：
专利许可=使用“专利技术”（如果有）的许可。
它是不可挽回的：这意味着您以后无法改变主意。
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer
Means if you have a patent on something in your contribution, you allow Google to use it without worrying about IP crap.
In other words:
Patent License = Permission to use the "patented technology" (if any).
It's irrecoverable: meaning you can't change your mind later.