

Microsoft changed IronPython, IronRuby and DLR licenses to Apache 2 - DrJokepu
http://ironpython.codeplex.com/license
Previously they were released with the Microsoft Permissive License.<p>http://ironpython.codeplex.com/license<p>http://ironruby.codeplex.com/license<p>http://dlr.codeplex.com/license
======
angusgr
I found a short thread discussing this change on the IronPython mailing list:

[http://www.mail-
archive.com/users@lists.ironpython.com/msg11...](http://www.mail-
archive.com/users@lists.ironpython.com/msg11376.html)

It seems like a public image choice more than anything, even though "Microsoft
Public License" was an OSI-approved license it still carries the dreaded
M-word. Plus people are more familiar with the Apache license.

Someone in the thread also commented that Apache License 2.0 is designed to be
GPLv3-compatible whereas MPL was less clear on GPL compatibility.

~~~
Goosey
I recall a video of the IronPython team talking about VS2010 support where
they mentioned they would be changing the license for GPLv3-compatible.
Considering how great this tiny little open source loving team buried deep in
the bowels of microsoft have been so far I am willing to trust that is the
main reason, not PR.

------
kevinlinuxbox
What motivated that change? It may be more compatible with related work, I
suppose.

~~~
rbanffy
What license did it use before?

And, about motivations, I will not trust Microsoft. They are constantly
threatening Linux users with patent suits and forcing them to license
undisclosed technologies, maintaining an atmosphere of legal uncertainty. Why
would anyone want to use tools that are vulnerable to such attacks?

~~~
rbanffy
As always, emotional and extremely hostile response to criticism against
Microsoft... It's so predictable you could use it to calibrate a cronometer.

~~~
cabalamat
It was emotional, and it was hostile. But, you know, emotion and hostility are
sometimes the right reaction to someone else's behaviour. Microsoft has
threatened open source in the past with lawsuits, and leaked Microsoft memos
(the Halloween Documents) have talked about using that as a strategy.

Given all that background, it makes sense for people to be cautious -- though
not unremittingly and unthinkingly hostile -- regarding Microsoft.

Now, for me, if I was developing on the CLR, I would very much consider using
IronPython. Though having said that, I wouldn't consider developing for the
CLR, because it isn't open source and doesn't run on Linux. Instead I might
use the JVM, which seems to be acquiring a good ecosystem of languages
(Groovy, Clojure) and tools (ANTLR, various IDEs) that run on it.

~~~
cabalamat
On a wider note, I do think the Halloween Documents heralded Microsoft's
current weakness. In them, they said that they were going to compete with
Linux and open source by using legal shenanigans. Nowhere did they say they
are going to compete by writing better software and producing better devices
than the competition so people would prefer using their products.

Instead MS though their dominance of the PC space meant they could relax and
didn't need to develop good products. And now Apple is eating their lunch.

------
icey
A friend and I were having a discussion about what Microsoft could do to help
foster more widespread adoption of C#, and the number one thing we agreed on
was fully open-sourcing the C# language and releasing it under a BSD or Apache
2 style license. It's nice to see they're taking that step with some of their
less mainstream products.

~~~
statictype
The specification for C# is already an open standard is it not? There's an
open source compiler implementation as well (Mono). In fact, there are two
(DotGNU).

~~~
icey
The specification is an ECMA standard, but afaik Microsoft's implementation is
not open. Mono has the unfortunate task of reimplementing everything instead
everyone working off of the same master source.

~~~
statictype
_The specification is an ECMA standard, but afaik Microsoft's implementation
is not open_

Yes, that's true. But I'm curious: How would open-sourcing their
implementation of the language (and not just the specification) help in making
its use more wide-spread? (Especially when the compiler is already available
at no-cost to those who want it, and for those interested in extending an
existing compiler for their own internal use, the Mono source is available)

I guess one possible answer might be that Microsoft's specific compiler
implementation may actually diverge from the standard submitted to ECMA (this
is actually the case on some edge cases in the language dealing with type
casting where they found that what their compiler implements doesn't follow
the standard exactly)

What are the other reasons?

~~~
nuclear_eclipse
Library implementations are not part of the ECMA standard; it would be really
nice to have a dedicated open source project (a la AOSP) that contains not
only the core language implementation, but the entire library implementation
as well. That would potentially allow users to not only contribute bugfixes
and improvements back to the project, but would give Mono et al access to
library implementations to make it much easier for them to reproduce the work
in a cross-platform method.

------
c00p3r
What Microsoft? Is it that multi-billion dollar buroctatic company which
failed to release any innovative product in ten years?

