Why can't they just send patches in to Matz and the Ruby dev guys like
other contributors? What's to be gained by making another version of
the same thing?
I presumed it was a situation similar to JRuby?
That is, providing the ruby language tightly integrated with and
running on a different platform.
If I ever had to program on the Java platform again, I'd be
grateful for the existence of JRuby. Similarly, if I ever had
to program on .NET, I imagine I'd be grateful for the existence
of IronRuby.
Their goals are very different
from most open source project goals so why are they trying to feign
active participation when anyone with a brain knows their intentions are
not genuinely friendly.
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?
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 11:20:39AM +0900, Michael T. Richter wrote:
On Thu, 2007-13-09 at 10:01 +0900, Phil wrote:
> > And this is different from the viral portions of the GPL suite how,
> > precisely? If I make a program with over a million lines of code
> > and add a hundred lines from a GPLed source, suddenly all of my
> > millions of lines of code are under the GPL.
> > Or is this different because it's Microsoft?
> 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.)
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
W. Somerset Maugham: "The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for
wit."
I wouldn't trust a free or open source software license from M$ if it
was approved by RMS himself.
And that's what it comes down to with me, trust. Sure they can
deliver a product under an open source license for a time, but nothing
would keep them from changing the license later if it's their own
project. Then anyone who wanted to keep going with said project would
have to rely on another group to continue with a still-open, forked
version. No one really wins in that scenario except M$. I refuse to
play a part in helping them hurt the open source community.
M$ has a different agenda than most open source software I know and love.
I would never trust them to come in a be a part of that world and not have
other monetary motivation. They have shareholders to answer to after
all.
···
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Bill Kelly 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?
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.
"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.
···
On 9/13/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:
Bill Kelly 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.
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.
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.
···
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 04:57:50PM +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Bill Kelly 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.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him
you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he questions
your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
"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?
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.
Quoth M. Edward (Ed) Borasky on Thursday 13 September 2007 06:26:43 pm:
Chad Perrin 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.
On Fri, 2007-14-09 at 10:36 +0900, Konrad Meyer wrote:
Quoth M. Edward (Ed) Borasky on Thursday 13 September 2007 06:26:43 pm:
> Chad Perrin 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.
--
Michael T. Richter <ttmrichter@gmail.com> (GoogleTalk:
ttmrichter@gmail.com)
So much of what we call management consists in making it difficult for
people to work. (Peter Drucker)
. . . or better yet, an implementation with a better license than the
GPL. (Why exactly does everyone always assume that "open source" must
mean GPL?)
···
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:57:15PM +0900, Michael T. Richter wrote:
On Fri, 2007-14-09 at 10:36 +0900, Konrad Meyer wrote:
> Quoth M. Edward (Ed) Borasky on Thursday 13 September 2007 06:26:43 pm:
> > Chad Perrin 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.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Marvin Minsky: "It's just incredible that a trillion-synapse computer could
actually spend Saturday afternoon watching a football game."
Nah, I missed the smiley. My mistake. Mono. Gnu.NET. A couple of
others. I rather doubt that IronRuby, by virtue of being CLRed, is
going to lock the world into MS even if MS somehow gets to Matz and
wrests control of Ruby away from him.
···
On Fri, 2007-14-09 at 13:08 +0900, John Lam (CLR) wrote:
You mean Mono (or maybe I missed a smiley)? Redirecting…
--
Michael T. Richter <ttmrichter@gmail.com> (GoogleTalk:
ttmrichter@gmail.com)
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's
unfamiliar territory. (Paul Fix)
