From: Gregory Brown Date: 2007-07-31T07:10:52+09:00 Subject: Re: Groklaw says "Watch out, Ruby!" On 7/30/07, Alex Young wrote: > Gregory Brown wrote: > > On 7/30/07, Alex Young wrote: > >> Gregory Brown wrote: > >>> On 7/30/07, Alex Young wrote: > >>> > >>>> Another question: is there any reason that, say, Rubinius' standard > >>>> libraries couldn't be used with IronRuby? Has anyone looked? What's > >>>> their implementation status at the moment? > >>> The MRI stdlibs are (mostly) Ruby and should be freely reusable. I'd > >>> be sort of surprised if alternative implementers bother implementing > >>> more than they have to with these, unless they need to tweak the > >>> existing libs for their implementations. > >>> > >> I'm sure you're right, I can't see many technical reasons not to use the > >> standard implementation. However, John Lam is specifically asking for > >> contributions to the IronRuby stdlib. I don't know what assignments > >> you'd have to make to get them accepted, and I haven't seen it discussed > >> anywhere. John, are you reading? Can you give us a steer on this? > > > > Oh, he can't use the implementations because I think the license is > > incompatible :-/ > > > That's why I mentioned rubinius - it's BSD-licensed, isn't it? What I'm saying is that my guess is that Rubinius would use the MRI implementations rather than wasting time building them from scratch. MIT License is compatible with the License of Ruby + GPL, i think IronRuby's license isn't. When you use parts of a project that are under a different license, you usually can't change the license terms without permission. Which means the Rubinius standard library would be under License of Ruby, not MIT, if they use the MRI implementations.