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

[REBOL] Re: Wikipedia

From: robert::muench::robertmuench::de at: 19-Nov-2008 15:41

Am 19.11.2008, 13:43 Uhr, schrieb Peta <>:
> please check the page (the Proprietarity discussion) > > and tell me, whether my "train of thought" was wrong, please.
Hi, well, I would say 98% of all people would answer: yes. But, you made some good points to think about. Taking your argumentation to the max would imply all public accessible languages are not proprietary because someone could pick it up. On the other hand the fact is, there is only one company doing an Rebol interpreter, there is only one company defining the current incarnation of Rebol or pushing the language forward. There is no public document describing the language, so that I could pick it up and do my own interpreter. We saw some actions regarding a clone but none picked up great momentum. On the other hand, what's the problem about a proprietary language anyway? So, I think mentioning that there is one company doing it at the moment and that this can be seen as proprietary would be OK. IMO telling non Reboler that they can change existing parts of the language or use Rebol to do dialects is key and the most difficult part ;-) Robert