IronRuby

[Lloyd Linklater]

I have heard disturbing things about IronRuby. The short version is
that MS wants to get into the open source arena as that seems to be
their biggest competition, but not in the way that those already there
are. I heard that they want to change the rules for open source to
insinuate themselves everywhere. I read their new version of the open
source agreement that says that if you copy the smallest bit from their
code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer and sundry stuff.

Also, I heard that they are going to add windows specific calls so that
the user could "optimize" his program with the "optional" calls. This
is what they did with java and Sun was outraged, sued and won. Now, MS
came out with a more or less windows specific java in the form of C#.

Are they going to do this with ruby? If so, will we be forced to write
windows ruby just to have it cross platform compatible?

Has anyone else been reading these things?

 

[Phil]

-----Original Message-----
From: (e-mail address removed) [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Lloyd Linklater
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 5:15 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: IronRuby
=20
I have heard disturbing things about IronRuby. The short version is
that MS wants to get into the open source arena as that seems to be
their biggest competition, but not in the way that those already there
are. I heard that they want to change the rules for open source to
insinuate themselves everywhere. I read their new version of the open
source agreement that says that if you copy the smallest bit from = their
code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer and sundry stuff.

The IronRuby license:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/permissiv=
elicense.mspx

That link can be found on IronRuby's Rubyforge project page =
(ironruby.rubyforge.org).

In short: No. MS even submitted the Permissive License for review by the =
OSI (self-appointed watchdog over OSS licenses).

Also, I heard that they are going to add windows specific calls so = that
the user could "optimize" his program with the "optional" calls. This
is what they did with java and Sun was outraged, sued and won. Now, = MS
came out with a more or less windows specific java in the form of C#.

Seems somebody misunderstood something a long the line (or listened to =
FUD spread by Google): IronRuby will do the same thing for .NET as JRuby =
does for Java: include an interface to the runtime/VM used.

In a sense, you'll be locked into a runtime. But only if you use the =
code of that runtime.

You can go ahead, and grab IronRuby from Rubyforge and build it =
yourself, and take a look.

Are they going to do this with ruby? If so, will we be forced to = write
windows ruby just to have it cross platform compatible?

Huh? Will JRuby and Matz' Ruby suddenly disappear when IronRuby is =
finalized?

Has anyone else been reading these things?

Not me.

 

[Gregory Seidman]

I have heard disturbing things about IronRuby. The short version is
that MS wants to get into the open source arena as that seems to be
their biggest competition, but not in the way that those already there
are. I heard that they want to change the rules for open source to
insinuate themselves everywhere. I read their new version of the open
source agreement that says that if you copy the smallest bit from their
code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer and sundry stuff.

Blah blah blah. If you don't like it, don't use it.

Also, I heard that they are going to add windows specific calls so that
the user could "optimize" his program with the "optional" calls. This
is what they did with java and Sun was outraged, sued and won. Now, MS
came out with a more or less windows specific java in the form of C#.

Oh noes! You mean I might be able to integrate with the entire .NET
platform in which IronRuby runs? I could make calls to various .NET
libraries that aren't available on other (read: non-.NET rather than
non-Windows, given that various .NET VMs/runtimes are available for various
operating systems) platforms? Truly, that would be a tragedy. Oh, yeah,
unless that's what I was trying to do in the first place. And if it isn't,
I don't have to use IronRuby.

Are they going to do this with ruby? If so, will we be forced to write
windows ruby just to have it cross platform compatible?

What are you smoking? No one's forcing you to do anything. There are
several implementations of Ruby compilers/VMs/interpreters/runtimes,
including YARV, MRI, Rubinius, Cardinal, JRuby, and IronRuby. Some are more
mature than others. Some perform better than others. Some provide
integration with platform-specific libraries (i.e. JRuby and IronRuby
providing Java and .NET integration, respectively). None of them are
standards-compliant because no standard exists (no, a test suite is not a
standard, and neither is a reference implementation).

Has anyone else been reading these things?

We've all seen it, but no one is depending on Microsoft's goodwill so no
one is particularly worried.

--Greg

 

[John Joyce]

I have heard disturbing things about IronRuby. The short version is
that MS wants to get into the open source arena as that seems to be
their biggest competition, but not in the way that those already there
are. I heard that they want to change the rules for open source to
insinuate themselves everywhere. I read their new version of the open
source agreement that says that if you copy the smallest bit from
their
code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer and sundry stuff.

Also, I heard that they are going to add windows specific calls so
that
the user could "optimize" his program with the "optional" calls. This
is what they did with java and Sun was outraged, sued and won.
Now, MS
came out with a more or less windows specific java in the form of C#.

Are they going to do this with ruby? If so, will we be forced to
write
windows ruby just to have it cross platform compatible?

Has anyone else been reading these things?

This is also what they did with C++ in the form of Visual C++
they tried to do it with HTML and Javascript too. Anything they touch
really.
They just try to use it as a business tactic. But every platform has
stuff like that.
You think Silverlight is just out of the goodness of their hearts?
why are you shocked? This has long been one of their strategies.
Sometimes it is simply an engineer introducing legitimate features,
but tech companies have long known that features can also be platform
lock-ins!
If it's a legitimately useful/cool feature, others implement it as
well and it becomes a defacto standard like the xml remote procedure
call that led to AJAX.
The irony is, Microsoft is probably setting themselves up to have
more malware written in more languages that are easier to write code in.

 

[Lloyd Linklater]

The IronRuby license:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/permissivelicense.mspx

That link can be found on IronRuby's Rubyforge project page
(ironruby.rubyforge.org).

In short: No. MS even submitted the Permissive License for review by the
OSI (self-appointed watchdog over OSS licenses).

In short, yes. From your link and I read and referenced:

3. Conditions and Limitations
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all
copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present
in the software.

"ANY portion of the software"
"you must retain ALL..."

What are you smoking? No one's forcing you to do anything.

I was just asking about things I read. No need to ask what I am
smoking. The things I have been reading seem alarmist and I wanted to
ask in a place where I had hoped I could get a more reasoned and
reasonable response.

 

[Greg Donald]

I have heard disturbing things about IronRuby. The short version is
that MS wants to get into the open source arena as that seems to be
their biggest competition, but not in the way that those already there
are. I heard that they want to change the rules for open source to
insinuate themselves everywhere. I read their new version of the open
source agreement that says that if you copy the smallest bit from their
code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer and sundry stuff.

M$ simply doesn't understand open source. They think they can make
their own version of everything when really they should just
contribute to the existing software project like other not-so-large
contributers do.

To have so much money and still be so clueless..

 

[John Lam (CLR)]

Can someone clarify for me the state of the various Ruby

implementations under .NET?
Here are the ones I've heard of.

1) Gardens Point Ruby.NET from Queensland University of Technology in
Australia (funded by Microsoft)
2) RubyCLR from John Lam
3) IronRuby from Microsoft which hired John Lam who now runs the
project

1) and 3) are both being actively developed. There are folks who have commi=
t privileges to 2), but I don't really have cycles now to contribute to 2) =
and 3)

-John

 

[Ari Brown]

On Sep 12, 2007, at 11:15 AM, Lloyd Linklater wrote:

<snip>

I may be bashed as a MS hater.... but long live the penguin.

Apparently, what MS will do is enter a field and provide everything
the competitors provide, except more.

The catch is they insert all sorts of trips, like the software will
only work when applied to .NET productions.
An example is a piece of network software they wrote which would only
talk to Windoze machines.

So.......
I really want to get my hands on that ruby compiler sooooooo baaaaaaaad

~ Ari
English is like a pseudo-random number generator - there are a
bajillion rules to it, but nobody cares.

 

[Michael T. Richter]

--=-p8ff/ke3uywXAVGFdW1l
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-up4wPYe5VjeQaeKOHMGd"


--=-up4wPYe5VjeQaeKOHMGd
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I read their new version of the open
source agreement that says that if you copy the smallest bit from their
code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer and sundry stuff.

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?

--=20
Michael T. Richter <[email protected]> (GoogleTalk:
(e-mail address removed))
I'm not schooled in the science of human factors, but I suspect surprise
is not an element of a robust user interface. (Chip Rosenthal)

--=-up4wPYe5VjeQaeKOHMGd
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; CHARSET=3DUTF-8">
<META NAME=3D"GENERATOR" CONTENT=3D"GtkHTML/3.12.1">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Thu, 2007-13-09 at 00:15 +0900, Lloyd Linklater wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">I read their new version of the open</FONT>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">source agreement that says that if you copy the sma=
llest bit from their</FONT>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer=
and sundry stuff.</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
And this is different from the viral portions of the GPL suite how, precise=
ly?&nbsp; If I make a program with over a million lines of code and add a h=
undred lines from a GPLed source, suddenly all of my millions of lines of c=
ode are under the GPL.&nbsp; Or is this different because it's Microsoft?<B=
R>
<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING=3D"0" CELLPADDING=3D"0" WIDTH=3D"100%">
<TR>
<TD>
-- <BR>
<B>Michael T. Richter</B> &lt;<A HREF=3D"mailto:[email protected]">ttmri=
(e-mail address removed)</A>&gt; (<B>GoogleTalk:</B> (e-mail address removed))<BR>
<I>I'm not schooled in the science of human factors, but I suspect surprise=
is not an element of a robust user interface. (Chip Rosenthal)</I>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--=-up4wPYe5VjeQaeKOHMGd--

--=-p8ff/ke3uywXAVGFdW1l
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBG6HM5LqyWkKVQ54QRAvh9AJ494euhXcC+g2ifYvrRAzzEewocQwCaAxVH
diCLYjTnxOLSAb0Q8NQ40rg=
=tXD+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-p8ff/ke3uywXAVGFdW1l--

 

[Phil]

From: Michael T. Richter [mailto:[email protected]]=20

Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:16 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: IronRuby

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=20
and add a hundred lines from a GPLed source, suddenly all of my=20
millions of lines of code are under the GPL.=20
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.

 

[Michael T. Richter]

--=-4GC6X/kIxxQrM+ayijCe
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-nRCf62BGKhl+6C6ivrzZ"


--=-nRCf62BGKhl+6C6ivrzZ
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Actually, the old BSD license with attribution clause is a closer fit. Th= e
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.)

--=20
Michael T. Richter <[email protected]> (GoogleTalk:
(e-mail address removed))
Experts in advanced countries underestimate by a factor of two to four
the ability of people in underdeveloped countries to do anything
technical. (Charles P Issawi)

--=-nRCf62BGKhl+6C6ivrzZ
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; CHARSET=3DUTF-8">
<META NAME=3D"GENERATOR" CONTENT=3D"GtkHTML/3.12.1">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Thu, 2007-13-09 at 10:01 +0900, Phil wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">&gt; And this is different from the viral portions =
of the GPL suite how,</FONT>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">&gt; precisely? If I make a program with over a mi=
llion lines of code </FONT>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">&gt; and add a hundred lines from a GPLed source, s=
uddenly all of my </FONT>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">&gt; millions of lines of code are under the GPL. <=
/FONT>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">&gt; Or is this different because it's Microsoft?</=
FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">Actually, the old BSD license with attribution clau=
se is a closer fit. The</FONT>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">MS-PL doesn't require you to publish your code with=
the same license, as the GPL does.</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Well, fair enough.&nbsp; The point I was trying to establish was that it's =
not unusual for licenses to say &quot;we encompass any work you do&quot; --=
whether the &quot;encompassing&quot; involves attribution (old-style BSD o=
r current MS-PL) or viral infection (GPL).&nbsp; The secondary point is tha=
t people really need to stop &quot;MS is evil, therefore anything from MS i=
s evil&quot;-style reasoning.&nbsp; (And I say this as a person who switche=
d permanently away from MS technologies in 2004.)<BR>
<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING=3D"0" CELLPADDING=3D"0" WIDTH=3D"100%">
<TR>
<TD>
-- <BR>
<B>Michael T. Richter</B> &lt;<A HREF=3D"mailto:[email protected]">ttmri=
(e-mail address removed)</A>&gt; (<B>GoogleTalk:</B> (e-mail address removed))<BR>
<I>Experts in advanced countries underestimate by a factor of two to four t=
he ability of people in underdeveloped countries to do anything technical. =
(Charles P Issawi)</I>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--=-nRCf62BGKhl+6C6ivrzZ--

--=-4GC6X/kIxxQrM+ayijCe
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBG6J5oLqyWkKVQ54QRAvkpAJ4iaN7Da9ItNWdG8uazUnxqRnnzRwCfb60G
o5IStdAmBGoA7x4HnzBMc98=
=n7j1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-4GC6X/kIxxQrM+ayijCe--

 

[Evan Klitzke]

I have heard disturbing things about IronRuby. The short version is
that MS wants to get into the open source arena as that seems to be
their biggest competition, but not in the way that those already there
are. I heard that they want to change the rules for open source to
insinuate themselves everywhere. I read their new version of the open
source agreement that says that if you copy the smallest bit from their
code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer and sundry stuff.

Also, I heard that they are going to add windows specific calls so that
the user could "optimize" his program with the "optional" calls. This
is what they did with java and Sun was outraged, sued and won. Now, MS
came out with a more or less windows specific java in the form of C#.

Are they going to do this with ruby? If so, will we be forced to write
windows ruby just to have it cross platform compatible?

Has anyone else been reading these things?

I can't really speak to the IronRuby situation, but I have been keeping
track of the progress Microsoft has been making with IronPython, and so
far that has been a good project. In particular, the IronPython folks
make it a big priority to make IronPython 100% faithful to the Python
language description (IIRC they even run the mainstream CPython
regression tests).

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.

 

[John Lam (CLR)]

-----Original Message-----

From: Evan Klitzke [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:49 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: IronRuby

I can't really speak to the IronRuby situation, but I have been keeping
track of the progress Microsoft has been making with IronPython, and so
far that has been a good project. In particular, the IronPython folks
make it a big priority to make IronPython 100% faithful to the Python
language description (IIRC they even run the mainstream CPython
regression tests).

The folks who created IronPython are on my team as well. FWIW they were tre=
ated with skepticism at start but eventually earned the respect of the comm=
unity. We're in the same boat - we need to earn your respect by doing the r=
ight things as well. And we fully expect the community to call us on our mi=
stakes.

-John

 

[Charles Oliver Nutter]

A couple of recent things that we've done is: a) submit Ms-PL for OSI certification, and b) release the IronRuby source code on Rubyforge *and* accept contributions back from the community.

You just released the core classes, yes? Or is what's on RubyForge all
someone needs to run IronRuby? Could what's on RubyForge be forked and
run on an arbitrary CLR? I'm a little confused on these points.

- Charlie

 

[Chad Perrin]

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.

 

[Chad Perrin]

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.

 

[Lloyd Linklater]

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?

 

[John Lam (CLR)]

PiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgTGxveWQgTGlua2xhdGVyDQo+DQo+IFRoZSBsaW5rIGdpdmVuIHdhcyBhIGRl
YWQgcGFnZSBmb3IgbWUuICBXaWxsIHRoZSBzb3VyY2UgYmUgZnVsbHkgb3Blbg0KPiBldmVudHVh
bGx5Pw0KDQpZZXMgLSBhcm91bmQgdGhlIHRpbWUgdGhhdCBETFIgaGl0cyAxLjAsIHdoaWNoIHdp
bGwgYmUgc29tZXRpbWUgbmV4dCB5ZWFyIC0gbGlrZWx5IGluIHRoZSBzdW1tZXIuDQoNCi1Kb2hu
DQoNCg==

 

[Lloyd Linklater]

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).

 

[Cody Skidmore]

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.