[REBOL] Re: Wikipedia
From: carl::cybercraft::co::nz at: 20-Nov-2008 9:54
On Wednesday, 19-Novenber-2008 at 9:48:15 Ryan Cole wrote,
>While the term proprietary language is common and sounds sensible, I would
>have to argue its often incorrectly used to refer to a proprietary
>interpreter or compiler. The REBOL interpreter is definitely proprietary.
>However, whether the language itself is proprietary is very disputable at
>best. Consider this:
>
>1. ORCA is an open source interpreter for REBOL. If the language was RT's
>property, legally RT would have been obligated to warn ORCA not to use it.
>By not doing so, they have effectively, in a legally binding way, waived any
>possible rights to it.
>2. RT has not explicitly called the language itself proprietary, patented,
>copyrighted, or anything else to take ownership of it that I am aware of.
>Not even in the license.
From the license: "You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE."
To my mind, writing a compiler for REBOL is a form of reverse engineering RT's compiler.
I've no idea whether that'd stand up in court though, and if it's true RT's done nothing
to put a stop to ORCA, then the question's possibly mute anyway.
>3. I am not aware of another language being owned, patented, copyrighted, or
>licensed by a company. There may be, but that does not appear to be the
>norm. Most languages seem to be widely and openly shared. Its the
>interpreters, compilers, and other software that are owned.
As long as they don't use...
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
>4. Not having a standards body does not mean its proprietary. BASIC does
>not have a standards body, and it is definitely not proprietary.
-- Carl Read
