Submitted by “It’s official: Microsoft will not accept any external code contributions to its planned Dynamic Language Runtime, which will run Microsoft’s new scripting languages for the web and Silverlight content on .NET. Microsoft will, though, continue to accept source-code contributions to its slowly emerging implementation of Ruby for .NET, IronRuby. Contributions are helping to build IronRuby and shepherd the language towards the first-full release. The Register has learned, meanwhile, that Microsoft will start accepting external contributions to its other great scripting language project, putting Python on .NET – IronPython – in the “near future”. The promise by Microsoft IronRuby lead John Lam comes nearly a year after the topic was first raised. The reason Microsoft decided to leave the DLR closed, despite taking contributions to the languages that will run inside it, is to protect itself from unwanted licenses and IP claims.”
Well not as bad as having everything closed. Currently you can get the source in MS-Pl, which is a free/open source license (approved by FSF, and OSI). But I’d prefer a true “open” project myself (as in external commits possible). It would had been a turning point for Microsoft. But changes takes a while (even Fedora was able to be truly open in only the 8th release).
However, I think Microsoft is being a very scared cat here. They’ve been known to many patent lawsuits lately (I think which cost them more than a $1B total). They just want to be as safe as possible. (I think they don’t need to be). I mean, look at the irony: MS is scared of IP threats in .Net, while Gnome is including Mono projects.
Anyways, I’ll be watching for future progress on the issue.
Edited 2008-06-13 20:54 UTC
You honestly believe this will actually happen, and you’re really trying to compare this to Fedora?
I just finished listening to a DotNetRocks with John Lam, and he sort of explained this.
The general problem MS has with accepting outside code is that they don’t really know where it comes from. Since they are the biggest litigation target in the industry (everyone remember Eolas?), their lawyers do not want core technology that is basically undefendable in court.
The reason IronRuby and IronPython are able to accept pulls from the community is that they are not core technology, will never ship with windows, and only be available as either an optional download or as a component in another program (for example, there is talks of making IRuby the recommended scripting language for dotnet, finally killing the abomination that is vba once and for all)
If MS is ever in a position where it has to yank IRuby or IPython from its sites and products that will suck, but it wont be disastrous. If they had to yank the DLR, that would be another story.
Strange. No one else has this problem. That’s what open source development is all about, and there are lots of established procedures for this sort of thing.
I can assure you that it has nothing to do with that ;-).
There are no established procedures, there are common practices. Some projects just dont pay attention at all to it, others require an eula style disclaimer, others actually require your signature on a contract saying you actually own the code and are allowed to contribute it.
As I said before, microsoft is in the unique position of being the largest target of litigation in the industry, it is not that difficult to understand their position on this when you think about it.
Well, thats what John Lam said. What do you think the reason is, and what qualifications do you have that make you more of an authority on this then him?
There are established procedures, and companies of lots of different sizes have procedures of copyright assignment and signing code off within open source projects, and they then proceed to use that code in their own shipped products.
So are a lot of other software companies. You act like it’s some minefield. I can assure you that lots of other companies have trod this path before the mighty Microsoft, who is oh-so worried about getting sued more than anyone else is ;-).
Errrrrrrr, the past twenty-five years of Microsoft’s behaviour over such events? We’ll just pretend that RTF, DR-DOS and a list of other similar things never happened. OK? We’ll let all that just wash over you.
I’m not employed by Microsoft ;-).
It’s OK for us to accept contributions for things like IronPython and IronRuby, because these are areas where we are behind and need all the help we can get to persuade you to run your Python and Ruby code on our platform. However, where our technologies are concerned, get off our lawn. As far as I know, projects like Mono have relied on the current (MS-PL) DLR source code to run IronPython, Ruby and Moonlight, and this is the predictable equivalent of them having their balls squeezed. Yes, certain things might be open source, but we’re going to set fire to the surrounding area (as the Romans used to do) so you can’t get off our platform.
This has absolutely nothing do with IP or licenses, and everything to do with control. I can’t think of anything more predictable than that. The sun has less chance of coming up in the morning.
Why are you so willing to attribute to Microsoft’s malice things which you are perfectly willing to accept from many other companies? The policy is obviously one of “look but don’t touch.” It’s very similar to the approach Apple and Sun and others adopt for their products.
I haven’t read the specifics, but it seems like the DLR still is under a license that would allow Mono or other runtimes to use it and modify their own versions of it. Microsoft seems fairly adverse to taking code from other people without a formal licensing agreement and some sort of payment.
As much as I dont like MS’ unethical business methods, I understand and accept their reasoning. Who wants to get sued? I mean, when SUN released Java as GPL it took helluva time, because SUN had to prove that SUN owned every line of Java code. It was a big job and cost lots of money, but SUN did it. I understand if MS doesnt want to go through the same procedure.
Though MS stopped Java being ISO standardised, because of “that would give to much power to a single company over a standard. That is not healthy:”
http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2007/09/microsoft-conde.html
This is a good move. I understand why Microsoft doesn’t go open-source all they way. They’re starting to give out source code for different technologies, which makes it easier for us developers to understand them better, makes it easier for us to debug our applications. Good for us, good for Microsoft (they benefit if we write better Windows applications).
Of course, the anti-Microsoft crowd will never be happy and will always find a stick to hit Microsoft with. But I don’t care.