[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 <peta-mailinator.com> wrote:
