Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: Wikipedia

From: ryan:practicalproductivity at: 19-Nov-2008 9:48

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. 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. 4. Not having a standards body does not mean its proprietary. BASIC does not have a standards body, and it is definitely not proprietary. --Ryan On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Peta <> wrote: