A
Alex Young
There's a current discussion on ruby-core about packaging stdlib as gemsJohn said:
- have you looked into that at all, or is that just not on the radar?
- have you looked into that at all, or is that just not on the radar?
G
Gregory Brown
Sweet! That's great news John.
O
Otto Hofmann
Gregory said:
JRuby have a compiler
FYI: http://www.headius.com/jrubywiki/index.php/JRuby_Compiler
-- Otto
A
Alex Young
Wow. That's cool.John said:
R
Robert Dober
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.
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,
A
Alex Young
It's only by having ruby-talk on one monitor and Visual Studio on theRobert said:
other that I'm staying sane
M
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
Monitors? You work with lizards? How cool is that??Alex said:It's only by having ruby-talk on one monitor and Visual Studio on the
other that I'm staying sane
E
evanwebb
To set the record straight:
1) Rubinius is BSD licensed.
2) There is a mixup in terminology here. We are not recoding the
standard library (stdlib). We are recoding the core library. The core
library is all methods on Array, Hash, String, etc. everything that is
available in ruby without a require. All of that code in MRI is in C,
and 95% of ours is in ruby.
3) I'd love to see IronRuby using our core library rather than
recoding it themselves. The JRuby guys and I have talked about that
very thing.
- Evan Phoenix
G
Gregory Brown
Whoops, I somehow threw MIT in there in place of BSD, but what I said
holds the same for BSD.
C
Charles Oliver Nutter
SonOfLilit said:
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.
- Charlie
U
Uma Geller
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.
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.
D
Daniel Lucraft
Uma said:
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) <year> <copyright holders>
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.
D
Daniel Lucraft
Daniel said:
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
C
Chad Perrin
Argh! Why people think that forced source distribution is some how "the
only way to be free" is beyond me.
J
John Lam (CLR)
Actually, there are many differences between the MS-PL
OSI approves more than just GPL. Unfortunately groklaw believes that open s=
ource =3D=3D 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 sug=
gested that they will do.
It also allows any of you to redistribute DLR or IronRuby or IronPython how=
ever you wish. You could do so freely, you could charge for the distributio=
n etc. You just have to abide by the conditions imposed by the license.
As for *interpreting* those conditions, please make sure that you consult w=
ith your friendly neighborhood attorney before making any business decision=
s around this. Unfortunately, email threads on RubyTalk and blog posts / co=
mments on the internet don't count as legal advice
Thanks,
-John
OSI approves more than just GPL. Unfortunately groklaw believes that open s=
ource =3D=3D 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 sug=
gested that they will do.
It also allows any of you to redistribute DLR or IronRuby or IronPython how=
ever you wish. You could do so freely, you could charge for the distributio=
n etc. You just have to abide by the conditions imposed by the license.
As for *interpreting* those conditions, please make sure that you consult w=
ith your friendly neighborhood attorney before making any business decision=
s around this. Unfortunately, email threads on RubyTalk and blog posts / co=
mments on the internet don't count as legal advice
Thanks,
-John
L
Lloyd Linklater
John said: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.
J
John Lam (CLR)
Doesn't your saying that we now need to get lawyers to tell us what we
You are certainly free to read the license yourself. It's very short and si=
mple. I just wanted to make it clear that *my* interpretation doesn't matte=
r, and neither does anyone else's if you happen to violate a term of the li=
cense based on a misinterpretation on your part. But if you feel comfortabl=
e in understanding the terms of your license without consulting your own la=
wyer then that's a risk that you are certainly welcome to take.
Consulting a lawyer is something you should do regardless of the license. T=
he 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 busine=
ss.
BTW, MsPL has and continues to be described as a BSD-style license by virtu=
ally anyone who has actually read the two licenses and compared them side-b=
y-side.
-John
You are certainly free to read the license yourself. It's very short and si=
mple. I just wanted to make it clear that *my* interpretation doesn't matte=
r, and neither does anyone else's if you happen to violate a term of the li=
cense based on a misinterpretation on your part. But if you feel comfortabl=
e in understanding the terms of your license without consulting your own la=
wyer then that's a risk that you are certainly welcome to take.
Consulting a lawyer is something you should do regardless of the license. T=
he 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 busine=
ss.
BTW, MsPL has and continues to be described as a BSD-style license by virtu=
ally anyone who has actually read the two licenses and compared them side-b=
y-side.
-John
R
Robert Dober
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
M
Marc Heiler
"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?
license. "
I wonder how people came to fear lawyer's and courts so much - have you
all been subject to litigation?
C
Chad Perrin
"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.