Ball, Donald A Jr (Library) wrote:
With all due to respect to John L. and the other IronRuby
developers, is anyone taking IronRuby all that seriously?As a way of getting rails into IIS shops, if nothing else.
I take IronRuby a lot more seriously than I take Groklaw.
Gregory S. wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:57:45AM +0900, Ben B. wrote:
or is jruby something fundamentally different than IronRuby in your
mind?The operative word is compiler. JRuby is a ruby runtime/interpreter, but
it
does not compile source down to bytecode. IronRuby is a compiler to CLR
bytecode plus runtime libraries.Ben
–Greg
JRuby have a compiler 
FYI: http://www.headius.com/jrubywiki/index.php/JRuby_Compiler
– Otto
John L. (CLR) wrote:
Does any know any good instructions for installing IronRuby on Mac OS
X?I’m pretty sure that Seo S. has IronRuby building on top of Mono now. He hasn’t published instructions yet, but I suspect those will be forthcoming soon.
Wow. That’s cool.
Robert D. wrote:
writing c# for 16 hours,
Good then it should still be possible to stop, now
It’s only by having ruby-talk on one monitor and Visual Studio on the
other that I’m staying sane
Alex Y. wrote:
IronRuby will be the first, assuming all is as it appears. At least, to
the best of my knowledge. I may be spouting gibberish - I’ve been
writing c# for 16 hours,
Good then it should still be possible to stop, now
It’s only by having ruby-talk on one monitor and Visual Studio on the
other that I’m staying sane
Monitors? You work with lizards? How cool is that??
SonOfLilit wrote:
On 7/30/07, Ben B. [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007, SonOfLilit wrote:
With all due to respect to John L. and the other IronRuby
developers, is anyone taking IronRuby all that seriously?
It’ll probably be the first “ruby” compiler to reach 1.0 and it allows
one to replace ActionScript with Ruby. Or so I hope.
You must mean “after jruby”:No, I don’t. jruby is an interpreter.
JRuby is a mixed-mode interpreter and compiler (to JVM bytecode) similar
to how HotSpot works. The compiler doesn’t compile all Ruby syntax, but
it compiles more every day. What it can compile, it does compile in a
JIT fashion as the code runs.
It’s likely we’ll have a 100% complete compiler to bytecode along with
the current “very high” level of compatibility before IronRuby achieves
either, but I’m the only one working on the compiler at the moment.
Actually, there are many differences between the MS-PL
and the real open source licenses approved by OSI,
as pj@groklaw has pointed out in further detail
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070730120109643
Would you want to ellaborate more on this ?
Hopefully the dialog will result in Microsoft moving closer to
what open source really stands for.
Regardless of the outcome, thanks John for your outstanding
work reaching out to the community.
Uma G. wrote:
Actually, there are many differences between the MS-PL
and the real open source licenses approved by OSI,
as pj@groklaw has pointed out in further detailGroklaw - Uh Oh. Another Smooth Move from Microsoft: Watch out, Ruby. Watch out OSI. -- Updated
Would you want to ellaborate more on this ?
Hopefully the dialog will result in Microsoft moving closer to
what open source really stands for.Regardless of the outcome, thanks John for your outstanding
work reaching out to the community.
Groklaw is saying that real open source licenses obligate licensees to
distribute source code of derived works IF they distribute binaries. OK.
Ms-PL doesn’t do that.
But how does the MIT license require this? There is no wording in there
anywhere that looks anything like that, but MIT is in the OSI license
database.
Groklaw also says that Ms-PL allows licensees to charge for modified
works. Well, the MIT license specifically allows fees as well.
It seems that Ms-PL is as much an open source license as the MIT
license. Those MIT bastards!
The MIT License
Copyright (c)
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to
deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the
rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS
IN
THE SOFTWARE.
best,
Dan
Daniel L. wrote:
It seems that Ms-PL is as much an open source license as the MIT
license. Those MIT bastards!
The Apache License 2.0 too. “You may reproduce and distribute copies of
the Work or Derivative Works … in Source or Object form” and no
obligation to redistribute the source code of a derived work is
mentioned.
Those Apache bastards! Truly the Open Source Community is under a
greater threat than we realized.
best,
Dan
On 7/31/07, Alex Y. [email protected] wrote:
Ari B. wrote:
Does any know any good instructions for installing IronRuby on Mac OS X?
There are only just working instructions for building it on Windows
It may in time be supported by Mono, but the DLR is still a moving
target so I wouldn’t expect that just yet.Or of any good (easy to use) compiler for Ruby?
IronRuby will be the first, assuming all is as it appears. At least, to
the best of my knowledge. I may be spouting gibberish - I’ve been
writing c# for 16 hours,
Good then it should still be possible to stop, now
Actually, there are many differences between the MS-PL
and the real open source licenses approved by OSI,
as pj@groklaw has pointed out in further detailGroklaw - Uh Oh. Another Smooth Move from Microsoft: Watch out, Ruby. Watch out OSI. -- Updated
Would you want to ellaborate more on this ?
OSI approves more than just GPL. Unfortunately groklaw believes that
open source == GPL which is clearly not the case.
As a more concrete example, the Ms-PL allows Novell to redistribute the
DLR however they wish, which is something that Miguel has already
publicly suggested that they will do.
It also allows any of you to redistribute DLR or IronRuby or IronPython
however you wish. You could do so freely, you could charge for the
distribution etc. You just have to abide by the conditions imposed by
the license.
As for interpreting those conditions, please make sure that you
consult with your friendly neighborhood attorney before making any
business decisions around this. Unfortunately, email threads on RubyTalk
and blog posts / comments on the internet don’t count as legal advice 
Thanks,
-John
John L. (CLR) wrote:
As for interpreting those conditions, please make sure that you
consult with your friendly neighborhood attorney before making any
business decisions around this. Unfortunately, email threads on RubyTalk
and blog posts / comments on the internet don’t count as legal advice
Doesn’t your saying that we now need to get lawyers to tell us what we
can and cannot do sort of tell us that the source is not open anymore?
I thought that the idea was to relax and share openly, hence the term.
If we have to cower and run to lawyers, who cannot tell us the right or
wrong of it but only whether they can defend it when some other lawyer
is paid to fight for the other team, then why would we want that around
anyway? Should open source be open source?
This is taking a most disheartening turn.
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 05:14:32PM +0900, Daniel L. wrote:
Groklaw also says that Ms-PL allows licensees to charge for modified
works. Well, the MIT license specifically allows fees as well.It seems that Ms-PL is as much an open source license as the MIT
license. Those MIT bastards!
Argh! Why people think that forced source distribution is some how “the
only way to be free” is beyond me.
Doesn’t your saying that we now need to get lawyers to tell us what we
can and cannot do sort of tell us that the source is not open anymore?
I thought that the idea was to relax and share openly, hence the term.
You are certainly free to read the license yourself. It’s very short and
simple. I just wanted to make it clear that my interpretation doesn’t
matter, and neither does anyone else’s if you happen to violate a term
of the license based on a misinterpretation on your part. But if you
feel comfortable in understanding the terms of your license without
consulting your own lawyer then that’s a risk that you are certainly
welcome to take.
Consulting a lawyer is something you should do regardless of the
license. The more complex ones eg GPL are things that you should look at
very closely to make sure you understand the implications of the license
on your business.
BTW, MsPL has and continues to be described as a BSD-style license by
virtually anyone who has actually read the two licenses and compared
them side-by-side.
-John
On 8/3/07, Lloyd L. [email protected] wrote:
wrong of it but only whether they can defend it when some other lawyer
is paid to fight for the other team, then why would we want that around
anyway? Should open source be open source?This is taking a most disheartening turn.
You are so right, that is why having some framework like OSI approval
might help in relaxing a bit more…
But I guess John is giving sound advice for this low world.
Concerning the MS license I can only say “Timeo danaos et donas
ferentes” and yes I now exactly what happened to the guy who said that
first, funny to see Bill Gates as Ulysses, but my horse sense is
telling me so…
Cheers
Robert
"Consulting a lawyer is something you should do regardless of the
license. "
I wonder how people came to fear lawyer’s and courts so much - have you
all been subject to litigation? 
“John L. (CLR)” [email protected] writes:
BTW, MsPL has and continues to be described as a BSD-style license
by virtually anyone who has actually read the two licenses and
compared them side-by-side.-John
I would say that anyone who thinks that severely underestimates the
importance of the patent grant section. Maybe “BSD-style” is just a
euphemism for “not the GPL”.
Steve
I would say that anyone who thinks that severely underestimates the
importance of the patent grant section. Maybe “BSD-style” is just a
euphemism for “not the GPL”.
I totally agree with this. However, in the interests of getting folks to
actually read the license, I didn’t want to mention patents and
Microsoft in same sentence
-John
On 7/30/07, Alex Y. [email protected] wrote:
more than they have to with these, unless they need to tweak the
That’s why I mentioned rubinius - it’s BSD-licensed, isn’t it?
What I’m saying is that my guess is that Rubinius would use the MRI
implementations rather than wasting time building them from scratch.
MIT License is compatible with the License of Ruby + GPL, i think
IronRuby’s license isn’t.
When you use parts of a project that are under a different license,
you usually can’t change the license terms without permission. Which
means the Rubinius standard library would be under License of Ruby,
not MIT, if they use the MRI implementations.
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 06:10:57AM +0900, Marc H. wrote:
"Consulting a lawyer is something you should do regardless of the
license. "I wonder how people came to fear lawyer’s and courts so much - have you
all been subject to litigation?
We’ve all seen things as crazy as the FSF threatening small Linux
distribution projects with lawsuits for violations of obscure
interpretations of the GPL. After occurrences like that, you’d be crazy
to not be paranoid.
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs