Hello!
John is without doubt best person to answer such questions, I just like
to
say that in his weblog post
“http://www.iunknown.com/2007/07/a-first-look-at.html” he says that:
“Some of you may be wondering why we are only accepting contributions
into
the libraries and not the entire compiler. It’s because IronRuby is
built on
top of the Dynamic Language Runtime (DLR), and the public interfaces to
the
DLR are not complete at this time. Since the DLR will ship as part of
the
CLR in the future, we cannot accept contributions into the IronRuby
compiler, at least initially. However, once the DLR matures and
reaches 1.0status with fully supported public interfaces, we will
fully open up all parts of the IronRuby project for external
contributions
.”
On separate note Mono (http://www.mono-project.com/) is open source and
I
think that you can get IronRuby from RubyForge nad run it on it (if not
right now, then in future definitely).
thanks,
Slavo.
Bill K. wrote:
So long as they are using a genuine open source license–which
it sounds like they are–I’m hard pressed to imagine any
catastrophic consequences from their efforts?
I’d love some clarification on that end of things. The core classes are
really public and you can contribute to them. The runtime (DLR plus some
IronRuby internals) seem to be public but you can’t contribute to it.
And then of course Microsoft’s CLR impl is not open source. I respect
what John’s trying to do opening up this project, but I worry about an
OSS project built on progressively more closed foundations.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:20:39AM +0900, Michael T. Richter wrote:
Actually, the old BSD license with attribution clause is a closer fit. The
MS-PL doesn’t require you to publish your code with the same license, as the GPL does.
Well, fair enough. The point I was trying to establish was that it’s
not unusual for licenses to say “we encompass any work you do” –
whether the “encompassing” involves attribution (old-style BSD or
current MS-PL) or viral infection (GPL). The secondary point is that
people really need to stop “MS is evil, therefore anything from MS is
evil”-style reasoning. (And I say this as a person who switched
permanently away from MS technologies in 2004.)
Agreed. I’m all for being incredibly suspicious of anything Microsoft
does – but suspicion shouldn’t translate to simply rejecting everything
with the word “Microsoft” or the letters “MS” attached without even
bothering to look at it. After all, the best trackball I’ve ever owned
was a Microsoft product, even if the worst OS I’ve ever used also came
from Microsoft.
I don’t trust Microsoft as far as I can throw the 900 pound gorilla, but
even pathological liars must tell the truth from time to time, even if
that truth is only setup for another lie.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 04:57:50PM +0900, Charles Oliver N. wrote:
OSS project built on progressively more closed foundations.
I don’t know that “progressively more” really fits here – but the
foundations are certainly closed (as John pointed out). That’s what you
get when you develop for MS Windows. There are no two ways about that.
Unfortunately, people still need to develop for MS Windows from time to
time – and doing so can actually provide some opportunity for people to
grow to appreciate things that are available other than on MS Windows,
particularly with cross-platform applications, so overall I think
IronRuby might serve to provide some impetus for some people to get out
of that rut.
On a similar note: The idea of open source software being built on
closed
foundations sounds a lot like what has been going on with open source
development in Java for several years. Despite this, I don’t really see
people complaining about the closed foundations represented by the Java
VM.
Slavo F. wrote:
John is without doubt best person to answer such questions, I just like
to
say that in his weblog post
“http://www.iunknown.com/2007/07/a-first-look-at.html” he says that:
"once the DLR matures and reaches 1.0status with fully supported public
interfaces, we will fully open up all parts of the IronRuby project for
external contributions
The link given was a dead page for me. Will the source be fully open
eventually?
Answering these points since Slavo did a great job at quoting me about
the other issue.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
And then of course Microsoft’s CLR impl is not open source. I respect
what John’s trying to do opening up this project, but I worry about an
OSS project built on progressively more closed foundations.
I’m not sure what progressively means in this context, but I think it’s
pretty clear to folks on this list that Windows is a closed source
operating system. The CLR is a part of Windows and ships with Windows.
I’m not sure how you can get any more ‘closed’ than Windows is already
Could what’s on RubyForge be forked and run on an arbitrary CLR?
Sure. The Mono folks have had DLR running for quite some time now. But
they don’t need to nor desire a fork. They can take the source code
as-is and ship it because MsPL gives them that privilege. We do tend to
break Mono with every major release of IronPython/DLR so they actually
really like us because we do push the boundaries of their
implementation. Generally it’s less than 2 weeks before they our stuff
building on top of Mono.
-John
Quoth M. Edward (Ed) Borasky on Thursday 13 September 2007 06:26:43 pm:
Chad P. wrote:
On a similar note: The idea of open source software being built on closed
foundations sounds a lot like what has been going on with open source
development in Java for several years. Despite this, I don’t really see
people complaining about the closed foundations represented by the Java
VM.
Yes, but after years of negotiations with literally hundreds of
stakeholders, Sun was able to open those foundations. Perhaps a similar
thing could happen with CLR.
It’s Microsoft. Unlikely.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:18:34 +0900, Chad P. [email protected]
wrote:
Despite this, I don’t really see people complaining about the closed
foundations represented by the Java VM.
Some people did complain quite a lot, until Java was finally opened[1].
-mental
[1] No causal relationship implied.
Behalf Of Lloyd L.
The link given was a dead page for me. Will the source be fully open
eventually?
Yes - around the time that DLR hits 1.0, which will be sometime next
year - likely in the summer.
-John
Well, if they actually give full open source, then those that always
think ‘conspiracy’ when Microsoft is named need not fear as everything
is there for viewing under the microscope. I see that CodeGear (read
Borland) has their Ruby for rails IDE (3rdRail) for sale already.
People do not seem worried about that. I expect that fears will fade in
proportion to how open the source is with MS as well. After that,
IronRuby will succeed or fail based on its intrinsic merits just as
everything else does (or should).
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 12:48:50PM +0900, Evan Klitzke wrote:
If IronRuby ends up like IronPython, the community should be pleased; a
new implementation can only draw more people to the language (especially
if it creates an easy way for C# developers to transition to the
language). Of course it could be devastating if Microsoft ends up
embarking on an embrace and extend type of strategy (as they did with
Java), but so far I don’t see any nefarious actions on their part.
I’m sure someone at Microsoft is, or shortly will be, angling for such a
way to leverage projects like IronPython and IronRuby. That doesn’t
mean
there isn’t value in the projects themselves, or that they should be
rejected for the potential for misuse they represent. I think that
IronRuby can be an incredibly positive thing, and may even serve to
provide some impetus for people to move away from their vendor lock-in
circumstances with Microsoft (in sort of a “the first hit is free” way).
Just keep your eyes open, and look out for the likely “embrace, extend,
extinguish” tactic from Microsoft’s decision-makers.
On Fri, 2007-14-09 at 10:36 +0900, Konrad M. wrote:
It’s Microsoft. Unlikely.
Of course someone could just make a GPLed version of the CLR, seeing as
how it’s standardized and all:
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:57:15PM +0900, Michael T. Richter wrote:
stakeholders, Sun was able to open those foundations. Perhaps a similar
thing could happen with CLR.
It’s Microsoft. Unlikely.
Of course someone could just make a GPLed version of the CLR, seeing as
how it’s standardized and all:
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm.
. . . or better yet, an implementation with a better license than the
GPL. (Why exactly does everyone always assume that “open source” must
mean GPL?)
From: Michael T. Richter [mailto:[email protected]]
Of course someone could just make a GPLed version of the CLR, seeing as how it’s standardized
and all: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm.
You mean Mono (or maybe I missed a smiley)?
http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page
-John
Michael T. Richter wrote:
On Fri, 2007-14-09 at 10:36 +0900, Konrad M. wrote:
It’s Microsoft. Unlikely.
Of course someone could just make a GPLed version of the CLR, seeing as
how it’s standardized and all:
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm.
In case you’re not aware of it, see the following project:
http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page
This is a project to create an open source version and has been around
for some time now.