Wikipedia
[1/9] from: peta::mailinator::com at: 19-Nov-2008 13:43
Hi all,
please check the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:REBOL page (the Proprietarity discussion)
and tell me, whether my "train of thought" was wrong, please.
TIA
Peta
[2/9] from: robert::muench::robertmuench::de at: 19-Nov-2008 15:41
Am 19.11.2008, 13:43 Uhr, schrieb Peta <peta-mailinator.com>:
> please check the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:REBOL 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
[3/9] from: edoconnor:gma:il at: 19-Nov-2008 9:54
Without getting into legal or semantic arguments, I think REBOL is a
proprietary language. I don't believe a successful case can be made against
it being proprietary.
Ed
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Peta wrote:
[4/9] from: peta:mailinator at: 19-Nov-2008 16:22
Ed>> Without getting into legal or semantic arguments, I think REBOL is a
Ed>> proprietary language. I don't believe a successful case can be made against
Ed>> it being proprietary.
Ed>> Ed
Thanks for the answers. Maybe I didn't emphasize one thing. The Wikipedia states, that
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".
So, my question was related to the verifiability, taking into account that a publicly
acceptable definition of "language proprietarity" does not exist yet.
Do you have a definition at hand, which looks like a reasonable starting point to you?
TIA
Peta
[5/9] from: dhsunanda:gma:il at: 19-Nov-2008 16:40
Peta:
> Do you have a definition at hand, which looks like a reasonable starting point to you?
I don't have a definition of proprietary.
But I can see that REBOL Corp has stated that R3 has a proprietary
core:
http://www.rebol.com/rebol3/architecture.html
<<(2) Runtime Core - Closed
This is the OS independent kernel that provides standard REBOL
capabilities across all systems and devices. It is this component
that makes REBOL operate identically on Windows, OSX, Linux, BSD,
Sony, Nokia, Nintendo, and other systems.
It should be noted that this component is not open source; it is a
proprietary core.
>>
Sunanda
[6/9] from: edoconnor:gma:il at: 19-Nov-2008 11:45
I don't have a definition at hand, and I'm not keen on proposing one.
It shouldn't be difficult to confirm that REBOL is proprietary. For example,
the R3 page http://www.rebol.com/rebol3/architecture.html states, "It should
be noted that [Core runtime component] is not open source; it is a
proprietary core." And R3 is intended to be a more open, collaborative model
than previous releases.
One question is,"Does any person or business entity own
and control the REBOL language and interpreter?" I think the answer is yes--
sure, the company REBOL Technologies officially owns it, with Carl
Sassenrath being its primary designer, architect, corporate officer and
public spokesperson.
I think its better to be transparent about this and let users decide for
themselves. In my opinion, it serves public interest to characterize REBOL
as proprietary-- unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Peta wrote:
[7/9] from: peta:mailinator at: 19-Nov-2008 18:04
Sun>>I don't have a definition of proprietary.
Sun>>
Sun>>But I can see that REBOL Corp has stated that R3 has a proprietary
Sun>>core:
Sun>>
Sun>>http://www.rebol.com/rebol3/architecture.html
Sun>>
Sun>><<(2) Runtime Core - Closed
Sun>>
Sun>>This is the OS independent kernel that provides standard REBOL
Sun>>capabilities across all systems and devices. It is this component
Sun>>that makes REBOL operate identically on Windows, OSX, Linux, BSD,
Sun>>Sony, Nokia, Nintendo, and other systems.
Sun>>
Sun>>It should be noted that this component is not open source; it is a
Sun>>proprietary core.
Sun>>
Sun>>
Sun>> Sunanda
Agreed. A citation of a non-disputed information inserted by me to the Wikipedia REBOL
article: "The official REBOL interpreter is proprietary."
My opinion was, that it accurately reflects the above.
Peta
[8/9] 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:
[9/9] 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
<<quoted lines omitted: 8>>
>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
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted