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

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::gmail 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:gm:ail 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:gmai:l 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