Hi,
I need a version of ruby that I can bind / extend with OS-independent C++
classes; I only need the basic script functionality (variables, control
loops, etc.), most of the logic will exist in the C++ system classes. SWIG
is attractive, if it works, but I still need an OS-independent executable of
the ruby interpreter.
At the moment, I am developing under windows, but this is not the target
platform. What is the best way to proceed?
Thanks,
Jeremy
Woah, you want an executable - binary format - that is OS independent?
That doesn’t, and won’t, exist; every OS has a different ‘interface’.
Even on the same processor, an app compiled for Linux won’t run on most
non-Linux OS’s, and so on.
So far as extending Ruby with C++… that’s already quite possible. Not
as clean as it could be (because Ruby is written in C, not C++) but
certainly possible.
If you only need these basics of Ruby, and not all of Ruby, don’t waste
effort: use something besides Ruby. Heck, find one of the C+±based
script/extension languages. (A search on Google or Freshmeat will turn
up any number of them.)
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 12:51, reckless wrote:
Hi,
I need a version of ruby that I can bind / extend with OS-independent C++
classes; I only need the basic script functionality (variables, control
loops, etc.), most of the logic will exist in the C++ system classes. SWIG
is attractive, if it works, but I still need an OS-independent executable of
the ruby interpreter.At the moment, I am developing under windows, but this is not the target
platform. What is the best way to proceed?Thanks,
Jeremy
In article alali7$cth$01$1@news.t-online.com,
Hi,
I need a version of ruby that I can bind / extend with OS-independent C++
classes; I only need the basic script functionality (variables, control
loops, etc.), most of the logic will exist in the C++ system classes. SWIG
is attractive, if it works,
Swig does work well and it’s getting better all the time.
but I still need an OS-independent executable of
the ruby interpreter.
Uhhhh… That’s a tall (many would say impossible) order… Maybe you
should look at JRuby which targets ruby to the Java Virtual Machine, but
I’m not sure that’s what you’re looking for.
At the moment, I am developing under windows, but this is not the target
platform. What is the best way to proceed?
Not sure why you think you need “OS-independent executable of the ruby
interpreter”. Most Ruby code itself will be portable (except where you
might be calling OS dependent libraries - If you’re doing that then it’s
best to ‘abstract’ those calls and put the OS dependent stuff into some
modules that can be mixed-in depending on the OS you’re running on [which
can be determined at run-time] ).
Phil
reckless reckless2k@yahoo.com wrote:
It could: JRuby, anyone?
Note that I’m not saying this is necessarily a good idea, just that it’s
possible.
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 02:11:12AM +0900, Sean Middleditch wrote:
Woah, you want an executable - binary format - that is OS independent?
That doesn’t, and won’t, exist;
–
Matt Gushee
Englewood, Colorado, USA
mgushee@havenrock.com
JRuby exists …
but it’s under the GPL (not even under the LGPL).
Blech.
I realise that this person may be perfectly legitimate to do this
(although I’m not super sure; it’s likely based on the existing
source and claims to be 1.6.7 compatible for most purposes), but it’s
still nasty, IMO, not to do it under the same licence as the base
implementation.
-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.09.07 at 22.32.57
Woah, you want an executable - binary format - that is OS independent?
That doesn’t, and won’t, exist;It could: JRuby, anyone?
I’m not familiar with JRuby, but if it works as I imagine, it’s still
not binary portable; you need the vm on the target architecture. ~,^
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 13:42, Matt Gushee wrote:
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 02:11:12AM +0900, Sean Middleditch wrote:
Note that I’m not saying this is necessarily a good idea, just that it’s
possible.–
Matt Gushee
Englewood, Colorado, USA
mgushee@havenrock.com
http://www.havenrock.com/
Austin Ziegler wrote:
I’m not super sure; it’s likely based on the existing
source and claims to be 1.6.7 compatible for most purposes), but it’s
still nasty, IMO, not to do it under the same licence as the base
implementation.
It is as nasty as releasing gcc under GPL 
Anyhow: it is much less nastier than releasing closed source…
Best Regards, Christian
Austin Ziegler wrote:
JRuby exists …
but it’s under the GPL (not even under the LGPL).
Blech.
Hi Austin,
We intend to licence JRuby under both LGPL and GPL soon. Stay tuned.
I realise that this person may be perfectly legitimate to do this
(although I’m not super sure; it’s likely based on the existing
source and claims to be 1.6.7 compatible for most purposes), but it’s
still nasty, IMO, not to do it under the same licence as the base
implementation.
The base impl. is released under the GPL (among other licences). I’m
surprised that someone would regard using that licence as “nasty”.
Anyway, we’re always open for suggestions on how we should licence
JRuby. Would you see any problems with a combined GPL/LGPL?
/Anders
–
A n d e r s B e n g t s s o n | ndrsbngtssn@yahoo.se
Stockholm, Sweden |
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!
It isn’t a question of your opinion but a question of the license. I will discuss this
topic only with the copyright holders of the original ruby because in my opinion copyright
violation is a very hard accusation.
Main contributors of JRuby don’t want to license JRuby under the Ruby license. If we really
have to use also the Ruby license we could throw away the whole existing JRuby code and restart
from nothing. But it should be clear that I wouldn’t do this work again.
We are working hard to release JRuby also under the LGPL. I spend a lot of time to create
JRuby and I never get any money for this work neither direct nor indirect. It is very
depressing to be confronted with your reproachs.
If you want to use JRuby under another license you can contact us (with an adequate email) but
if you don’t like the JRuby project and want to stop it you are on the right way.
Jan Arne Petersen
On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 02:36:35 +0000, Austin Ziegler wrote:
JRuby exists …
but it’s under the GPL (not even under the LGPL).
Blech.
I realise that this person may be perfectly legitimate to do this (although I’m not super
sure; it’s likely based on the existing source and claims to be 1.6.7 compatible for most
purposes), but it’s still nasty, IMO, not to do it under the same licence as the base
implementation.
As far as I know, it’s just a product of my warped imagination …
though not without precedent. Python has its Java implementation. I’ll
leave it to others to debate whether that’s a good thing or not.
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 02:58:07AM +0900, Sean Middleditch wrote:
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 13:42, Matt Gushee wrote:
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 02:11:12AM +0900, Sean Middleditch wrote:
Woah, you want an executable - binary format - that is OS independent?
That doesn’t, and won’t, exist;It could: JRuby, anyone?
I’m not familiar with JRuby, but if it works as I imagine, it’s still
not binary portable; you need the vm on the target architecture. ~,^
–
Matt Gushee
Englewood, Colorado, USA
mgushee@havenrock.com
Austin Ziegler wrote:
I’m not super sure; it’s likely based on the existing source and
claims to be 1.6.7 compatible for most purposes), but it’s still
nasty, IMO, not to do it under the same licence as the base
implementation.It is as nasty as releasing gcc under GPL
Well, no, because gcc explicitly states that output is simply that,
and isn’t covered. It’s more like releasing “bison” under the GPL.
The difference, of course, is that because Java is a relatively
dynamic language, you may have a GPL-conflict without even knowing
it. In theory, you could use JRuby to script JavaBeans; however, if
those Beans are under a non-GPL-friendly licence, and you may not
know it if it’s something sent to you by an application server, then
you have violated the GPL. Further, JRuby is intended to be embedded
in Java applications, which means that they must be GPLed or able to
be taken over by the GPL.
Anyhow: it is much less nastier than releasing closed source…
Only to a very small point it is. The GPL is the worst of the truly
open licences out there, IMO. I’m the anti-Stallman in many ways;
while he recommends the GPL for everything even over the LGPL, I
recommend the LGPL or an equivalent (MPL or Perl|Ruby Artistic, for
example) for everything even over the GPL.
The best licence that the FSF came up with was the LGPL; the worst
was the GPL.
-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.09.07 at 22.57.11
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 11:52:15 +0900, Christian Szegedy wrote:
Anders Bengtsson ndrsbngtssn@yahoo.se writes:
Anyway, we’re always open for suggestions on how we should licence
JRuby. Would you see any problems with a combined GPL/LGPL?
Would you consider releasing it under the same terms as Ruby itself?
Dave
if you don’t like the JRuby project and want to stop it you are on the
right way.
Grow up and get professional. The reason people are not thrilled is that
they may be interested in using Jruby on commercial projects; the GNU
licenses restrict this. This is great for the open source community, but not
so great for commercial developers who what to take advantage of open
source. It all depends on what market you want to reach with your product or
if you don’t want to support commercial development with open source
products… Which is perfectly legitimate.
Jeremy
“Jan Arne Petersen” jpetersen@uni-bonn.de writes:
- We are working hard to release JRuby also under the LGPL. I spend
a lot of time to create JRuby and I never get any money for this
work neither direct nor indirect. It is very depressing to be
confronted with your reproachs.
I agree that the original e-mail might have been somewhat too
aggressive. Assuming that no original licenses are broken, you clearly
have the right to use whatever license you want for JRuby. I respect
your flexibility at adding the LGPL in to the mix.
Licensing is a very interesting area. Until you’ve invested 100’s of
hours producing something you intend to release, it’s all very
academic. But when you need to release something that you’ve worked
hard on, suddenly the license becomes important, and decisions that
once seemed simple become difficult.
The (L)GPL issue is a very difficult one. Some developers have a
philosophical drive that says software must be GPLed. Other developers
recognize that this (by intent) will limit the number of people who
use their software, and therefore seek to use a more open license
(perhaps BSD/MIT based). One camp looks for reinforce the authority of
the FSF, while the other camp writes software that they want used by
the maximum number of people.
It’s purely a question of the developers’ motivations. As the people
who invested the original (and considerable) effort, they have every
right to license the code any way they want (assuming no break of
existing copyrights).
Personally, I dislike releasing under the (L)GPL. I write software for
other people to use. I would encourage the JRuby folks to spend time
considering the downsides of a more liberal license (and I’d be happy
to discuss this off-list with them if they wanted), but I’d defend
their right to use any licensing terms they can legally use.
Regards
Dave
Austin Ziegler wrote:
JRuby exists …
http://jruby.sourceforge.net/
but it’s under the GPL (not even under the LGPL).Blech.
We intend to licence JRuby under both LGPL and GPL soon. Stay
tuned.
That would be better than just GPL, although, IMO, still not
“right”.
I realise that this person may be perfectly legitimate to do this
(although I’m not super sure; it’s likely based on the existing
source and claims to be 1.6.7 compatible for most purposes), but
it’s still nasty, IMO, not to do it under the same licence as the
base implementation.
The base impl. is released under the GPL (among other licences).
I’m surprised that someone would regard using that licence as
“nasty”.
Two different statements. IMO, it is bad spirited (“nasty”, if you
will) for someone to take a program which is available under two
licences and choose only one of them for a reimplementation. I do,
by the way, consider the GPL to be an ill-advised choice for most
programs, especially programming languages. (The LGPL is better.
Much better.)
Anyway, we’re always open for suggestions on how we should licence
JRuby. Would you see any problems with a combined GPL/LGPL?
As I said above, I think it’s better. I don’t necessarily think that
it’s right to be GPL/LGPL; it should be, at least IMO, GPL and
Ruby/Artistic.
-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.09.09 at 01.19.19
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 23:51:41 +0900, Anders Bengtsson wrote:
I realise that this person may be perfectly legitimate to do this
(although I’m not super sure; it’s likely based on the existing
source and claims to be 1.6.7 compatible for most purposes), but
it’s still nasty, IMO, not to do it under the same licence as the
base implementation.
- It isn’t a question of your opinion but a question of the
license. I will discuss this topic only with the copyright holders
of the original ruby because in my opinion copyright violation is
a very hard accusation.
You’re right. It’s not a question of my opinion – it’s a question
of the opinions of the copyright holders on Ruby and all of the
modifications to Ruby up until the point from which you diverged
from the existing source.
However, as someone who uses Ruby and might consider JRuby, it does
matter to me. As such, it’s definitely my right and responsibility
to comment. It’s also my right and responsibility to raise this
issue in a forum where the original copyright holders – who appear
not to have been consulted about the choice of only one of the two
available licences – can be notified.
- Main contributors of JRuby don’t want to license JRuby under
the Ruby license. If we really have to use also the Ruby license
we could throw away the whole existing JRuby code and restart from
nothing. But it should be clear that I wouldn’t do this work
again.
I think, then, that there’s a problem. My understanding is that when
a program is dual-licensed, you have the option of accepting it
under either of the licences available. However, modified versions
must be released under both (or all) existing licences. I’ve put
this question to Lawrence Rosen (lrosen@rosenlaw.com) who writes for
one of LJ or LM. I haven’t given details except the fact that the
original project is under GNU GPL and/or artistic-style and the
forked project is only available under GNU GPL.
I could be wrong. But even if I am legally wrong in my
interpretation, it seems to go against the spirit of dually licenced
software to do what you’ve done, which is to choose the worse of the
two licences that Ruby has available.
I am curious, though: why didn’t the main contributors want to use
Ruby’s licences (both of them)?
- We are working hard to release JRuby also under the LGPL. I
spend a lot of time to create JRuby and I never get any money for
this work neither direct nor indirect. It is very depressing to be
confronted with your reproachs.
I’m not giving reproach. I’m raising questions. I think your effort
is likely to be a good thing, but I think that your licencing
choices may have been misguided. As I said in response to Anders, I
think that LGPL + GPL is better, especially because of the
problems that the GPL has with dynamic languages, but I still don’t
necessarily think that it’s “right”.
If you want to use JRuby under another license you can contact us
(with an adequate email) but if you don’t like the JRuby project
and want to stop it you are on the right way.
I’m not interested in stopping the JRuby project. IMO, if it were
licensed properly, it could make a good basis for a Ruby.NET. I’m
just disappointed that people who obviously like a language and it’s
implementation enough to reuse it don’t choose the whole of the
licensing conditions under which it is available.
-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.09.09 at 01.27.50
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 01:49:16 +0900, Jan Arne Petersen wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 02:36:35 +0000, Austin Ziegler wrote:
Hi,
In message “Re: JRuby (was Re: OS-independent build of ruby)” on 02/09/08, Dave Thomas Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com writes:
Anyway, we’re always open for suggestions on how we should licence
JRuby. Would you see any problems with a combined GPL/LGPL?Would you consider releasing it under the same terms as Ruby itself?
Or simpler license like the following.
Permission is granted for use, copying, modification, distribution,
and distribution of modified versions of this work as long as the
above copyright notice is included.
Rite will be released under this license.
matz.
Hello –
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, reckless wrote:
if you don’t like the JRuby project and want to stop it you are on the
right way.Grow up and get professional. The reason people are not thrilled is that
they may be interested in using Jruby on commercial projects; the GNU
licenses restrict this. This is great for the open source community, but not
so great for commercial developers who what to take advantage of open
source. It all depends on what market you want to reach with your product or
if you don’t want to support commercial development with open source
products… Which is perfectly legitimate.
And perfectly grown up, and perfectly professional. Can we keep the tone
of this list, ummm, grown up and professional, please?
David
–
David Alan Black | Register for RubyConf 2002!
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net | November 1-3
work: blackdav@shu.edu | Seattle, WA, USA
Web: http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav | http://www.rubyconf.com
You don’t read the mails Austin wrote to me. But there is a big difference if you start a
conversation with a request for another license (because you want to use JRuby in a commercial
application) or with the unfounded reproach of copyright violation. And I don’t think that much
open source developers are happy to share there code with you after you wrote them such mails.
I get some very friendly mails from people who want to use JRuby in commercial applications. As
a consequence I want to relase JRuby also under other licenses. Maybe it isn’t professional but
I’ve to take the copyright laws (which exists at least here in Europe) into consideration. As
you can read in the last post JRuby will probably be released under the LGPL in the future.
Jan Arne Petersen
On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 19:31:55 +0200, reckless wrote:
if you don’t like the JRuby project and want to stop it you are on the
right way.Grow up and get professional. The reason people are not thrilled is that they may be interested in
using Jruby on commercial projects; the GNU licenses restrict this. This is great for the open
source community, but not so great for commercial developers who what to take advantage of open
source. It all depends on what market you want to reach with your product or if you don’t want to
support commercial development with open source products… Which is perfectly legitimate.
I don’t see the problem for commercial developers. They can still sell their
software as long as they make it GPLed.
On September 8, 2002 01:49 pm, reckless wrote:
if you don’t like the JRuby project and want to stop it you are on the
right way.
Grow up and get professional. The reason people are not thrilled is that
they may be interested in using Jruby on commercial projects; the GNU
licenses restrict this. This is great for the open source community, but
not so great for commercial developers who what to take advantage of open
source. It all depends on what market you want to reach with your product
or if you don’t want to support commercial development with open source
products… Which is perfectly legitimate.Jeremy
–
To call me “awesome” is an understatement.