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: > > 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 > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to > lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject. > > -- To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
