none
About the future of Rx in .NET RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi,

    We are really enthusiastic about Rx in my company as it seems to be a good framework for robust and flexible multithreaded events management. But before starting full production with it, we would like to know the probability for Rx to become a full part of .NET in a medium time horizon.

    Regards

    Marc

    Thursday, December 9, 2010 8:33 PM

Answers

  • We would love you and everybody else to build software and products using Rx, and we tried our best to make the EULA as clear as possible.

    If you believe the current terms are too restrictive, do not hesitate to point out the concrete conditions and propose an alternative formulation that would work for you.

    Ultimately however, the EULA says "... by using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software." It is as simple as that.

    Hope this helps,

    Erik

    Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:41 PM

All replies

  • Thanks for your fast answer Richard.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current licensing terms and there was a a great chance that we would have used Rx without an complete .NET framework integration: your product  is from my point of vue top notch. Nonetheless, we needed an estimation about the future development and maintenance of Rx before using it in production.

    My medium horizon was the around the release of .NET 5.0.

    Regards

    Marc

    Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:27 PM
  • I've decided to remove my answers because they aren't really helpful and are obviously misleading, since you seem to have the impression that I work on the Rx team, which I don't.  I wish.  :)  If the Rx team has anymore knowlege of release plans that they wish to share, they'll let us know.  In the meantime the question has been raised on this forum a few times.
    Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:55 PM
  • Hi Marc,

    Based on the Rx team's past responses to similar questions, it doesn't seem like they are pushing to have Rx included in the .NET Framework.  I assume the primary reason is to keep Rx independent of the .NET Framework release cycle.

    Currently, we (the Rx community) get several updates per year from the Rx team including bug fixes and/or new features.  This comes at the cost of the feeling of guaranteed long-term support, like we get from the FCL.

    Perhaps it would be enough to simply increase your confidence that the Rx team has every intention of continuing to support and develop Rx, regardless of whether it's going to be included in the FCL or not.  Of course, only the Rx team themselves can provide us with such an assurance, so here are a few related responses from the Rx team (not an exhaustive list):

    http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/rx/thread/460ab241-ca07-4c12-9a6e-ec51811300e1#743a09a3-56a0-43b9-bd85-fbbc71841bc4

    http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/rx/thread/fb91f091-f375-4c4c-972f-fca81ab7e9b6#e8896cf8-8ade-40c3-80fa-0d8f1774fe30

    http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/rx/thread/1b74834c-7979-45a5-bd39-447a8848aa76#2fb4b779-0731-41a6-9338-a42fdee23852

    Specifically, from that last discussion:

    We believe that IObservable and Rx is still the most complete solution for dealing with composition of any asynchronous computation and event stream. For those who need this kind of expressiveness or enjoy the declarative nature, we'll keep investing in Rx. We will also keep working with the managed language team to try to make IObservable fit in as well as possible in the patterns that their compilers generate.

    Jeffrey

    - Dave


    http://davesexton.com/blog
    Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:33 PM
  • Richard's orginal answer is spot on. What is concretely is missing from the current licensing terms that prevents you from using Rx? 

    Thursday, December 9, 2010 11:28 PM
  • Well, presumably since Rx is still in DevLabs the OP wants an assurance that it won't suddenly be canned. I.e., irrespective of whether it will ever ship with the FCL is it destined to become an official product - like Silverlight or ASP.NET MVC for example?

    Kevin
    Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:31 PM
  • deleted

    • Proposed as answer by Richard Hein Friday, December 17, 2010 4:45 AM
    Friday, December 17, 2010 4:45 AM
  • @head.in.the.box

    a response that he sady removed..

    it seems the rx team is holding firm on the policy of not giving straigt awnsers..

    there are numerous examples of things that are not on devlabs but still have firm releases that they arent afraid of telling people they can use for whatever they like. Asp.net MVC and MEF are great examples of this, as is NuGet.

    it doesnt help that there is a version of wp7 that is a little diffrent but not blanketed in a devlabs license, and now also another wp7 rx version that is.. hopefully once the [nuget] packages arrive things will be more clear..

    also please unmark richards suggested awnser. the principles behind rx might not go away, but as long as there isnt a release with a clearly stated golive or otherwise unrestricted licence, using rx brings on a significant risk for commercial developers in terms of sudden cannage.

    Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:17 AM
  • The main prolem IMO is not the lack of a formal golive license or whatever but the fact that Rx still sits in DevLabs. Then you see the words on the DevLabs About page...
    Kevin
    Wednesday, December 22, 2010 10:11 PM
  • > as long as there isnt a release with a clearly stated golive
    > or otherwise unrestricted licence

    What concretely in the current Rx license (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/devlabs/ff394099) is preventing you at this point from using Rx?

    We tried our best to remove restrictions, but of course we would love to make it even better.

    The WP7 version is purely a courtesy to give Phone developers equal access to the latest bits http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rxteam/archive/2010/10/28/rx-for-windows-phone-7.aspx

    Hope this helps.

    Thursday, December 23, 2010 2:41 AM
  • as i mention in this thread:

    What prevents me from using it in commecial code is that the conjunction of, a) commecial use is not expressly premitted by the licence, and b) it is stated that i may only use this software as expressly permitted by the licence.

    i can understand why rx bits are relased for wp7, what i dont understand is why they where included in the rom using a diffrent licence

    Thursday, December 23, 2010 12:43 PM
  • for .net those rights are reserved, not denied. the rx licence on the other hand states that use is only premitted if its expressly granted by its licence. there is a sublte but very significant diffrence.

    in any case, given the lack of comment from the team, and the general hostility this community presents agaisnt people who dear ask about the future of rx, im really not confortable to use rx in production until there is a realease with a clear go-live licence.

    my loss if im wrong. merry xmas..

     

    Thursday, December 23, 2010 4:25 PM
  • no i dont know that and no i do not want to be right. All ive ever done is ask a question to the team that they refuse to awnser or even comment on. ive was asked what made me hesitant to use rx in production and i awnsered.

    All ive said is that the eula is at best unclear and expressly forbids commercial use in some cases.

    You are not on the rx team. As ive said before multiple times i value your oppinion, one you've also made abundantly clear, but that is not a replacement for a comment from the team or for a proper go live licence. indeed that is what i said in the c9 post you linked to.

    sure, microsoft might go bankrupt tomorrow, heck the sun might explode and the universe might end, but that hardly the same as asking if rx might rtm at some point and when that might be.

    why dont you ask yourself why its so important for you to speak in their place before you start accusing me of twisting the eula to suit my argument (though idont call asking a question an "argument").

    Thursday, December 23, 2010 6:42 PM
  • We would love you and everybody else to build software and products using Rx, and we tried our best to make the EULA as clear as possible.

    If you believe the current terms are too restrictive, do not hesitate to point out the concrete conditions and propose an alternative formulation that would work for you.

    Ultimately however, the EULA says "... by using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software." It is as simple as that.

    Hope this helps,

    Erik

    Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:41 PM
  • *sigh* but thats the thing, they havent adressed it at all.. all they've done is reply with another qustion, and that is not giving an awnser..

    as for my reaction, i hardly used those words, and further more you yourself have said that you're not affliated with microsoft and cant give a conclusive awnser. i already know your oppinion. but that is just that, an oppinion.

    its great that you're so passionate about rx, but that is not enough in this case. its unforunate that you consider asking the team a question "going off", but i guess i have to live with that.

    thanks for your input

    Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:00 PM
  • We would love you and everybody else to build software and products using Rx, and we tried our best to make the EULA as clear as possible.

    If you believe the current terms are too restrictive, do not hesitate to point out the concrete conditions and propose an alternative formulation that would work for you.

    Ultimately however, the EULA says "... by using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software." It is as simple as that.

    Hope this helps,

    Erik

    Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:05 PM
  • @head.in.the.box

    that is good to hear, thanks for commenting. what i feel is to restrictive in the licence is this line in perticular:

    "you may not [..] use the software for commercial software hosting services except as expressly provided above"

    i would like a licence that is clearly stated as beeing a go-live licence though..

    i hope that makes it clear. thanks and merry christmas

     

    [edit]

    Richard heins posts that i've been replying to in this thread seems to have disappeard, so some of my posts above doesnt really make sense (allthough that might have been true before as well ;))

    Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:38 PM