This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
These facts were discovered:
In the sense of I know that I know nothing it would be interesting to establish, whether:
However, the discovered facts justify me to:
Peta 77.104.243.33 ( talk) 09:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I give. If you put back the neutral one mentioning both viewpoints I won't fight you.
Kleg ( talk) 18:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Kleg. It is nice of you. But, when I wanted to start adding the text I perceived as NPOV I found this: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." [1]
Thus, an attempt to write the subject in a NPOV manner would require to use reliable sources anyway.
Summary of findings:
Due to the lack of reliable sources I admit, that I was wrong offering the option to write the subject in a NPOV, so now the question arises, what can be done about it.
Peta 77.104.243.33 ( talk) 10:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Rebol is not free software, it is proprietory. The fact that the core is not open is pretty ovious, there are attempts at building free software implementations (oscar) etc, but they are not rebol proper, the product rebol is owned by a company and it is not free. That is why I updated the web page. Before changing it back, please discuss here.
mike James Michael DuPont ( talk) 03:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The subject of the article is a programming language/data exchange language. Your statement that the language is "software" is mistaken. The fact that a programming language has one or more interpreters does not make it "software".
Your edits are inappropriate, since:
Summing all the above up, I see your editing attempts as willful infringements of Wikipedia policies. I sincerely hope, that you don't continue using such practices here. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 00:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I have tagged this article as confusing, I felt misled by it and it is not clear as to the licensing and openness of "rebol". It needs to be clear that there is no independent standard for the language (like c for example), that the name is a trademarked product, it is not free software and there are all types of restrictions on its usage, distribution and decompilation. please do not remove this until we have clearly marked and classified this article so that people can see immediately that it is not free software or an open standard. James Michael DuPont ( talk) 05:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
As said, the results of original research are unwelcome here. The status(es) of (different) interpreter(s) is (are) already mentioned in the article. Stop continuing the policy of pushing such a research here as something "true". Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 07:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
As for the "suggestions may be found on the talk page" - that is untrue. The above user did not propose anything Verified, he is just pushing again a result of his original research. His attempts to push his "truth" using this method are still the same as before: the attempts to push somebody's original research to the article no matter what. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 07:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the "I felt misled by it". What exactly did you find misleading? Was it the "The major REBOL implementation is a proprietary[7] interpreter"? As to the "openness" word - where exactly did you find that word used misleadingly in the article? On the other hand, a statement like: "the ... language is ... software" you try to push is misleading and not even controversial, just verifiably false. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 14:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
What was it you found unclear in the question which formulation in the article you found confusing? As for the above completely inaccurate informations, I verified e.g. the trademark with USPTO, and guess what? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
REBOL/View 2.7.7.3.1 1-Jan-2010 Copyright 2000-2010 REBOL Technologies. All rights reserved. REBOL is a trademark of REBOL Technologies. WWW.REBOL.COM
http://www.rebol.com/docs/sdk/encap.html
REBOL is a trademark of REBOL Technologies.
http://softinnov.org/rebol/index.shtml
REBOL is a registered trademark of REBOL Technologies . Designed by Carl Sassenrath , REBOL is the Relative Expression Based Object Language.
http://www.rebol.org/art-display-article.r?article=cv6t
and dont forget the license :
http://www.rebol.com/license.html
Trademarks The REBOL name and the REBOL logo are registered trademarks ® of REBOL Technologies.
You dont need to register a trademark with the uspo to claim it is yours. see Unregistered_trade_mark.
18:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
James Michael DuPont ( talk) 18:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.trademarkia.com/r-76063377.html The trademarks are dead according to this site, but that does not mean you can just take them. http://www.trademarkia.com/company-rebol-technologies-1020524-page-1-2 James Michael DuPont ( talk) 18:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 20:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
{{Infobox programming language}}
. That means the main product that implements it is proprietary, just like rebol. There are also free alternatives to matlab, look at this wording "There are also free open source alternatives to MATLAB, in particular GNU Octave, FreeMat, and Scilab which are intended to be mostly compatible with the MATLAB language (but not the MATLAB desktop environment)." I think we need something like that, gnu octave is also very similar but not quite matlab. The article mentions red, but on the red webpage "The syntax is almost the same as the one used by REBOL language, as the lexer (LOAD) is currently provided by REBOL during the bootstrapping phase. The REBOL syntax doesn't have a formal specification nor an exhaustive documentation, just a superficial description, but it is enough to work with."
http://static.red-lang.org/red-system-specs.html, how can you call it a language without a public specification? The definition of the rebol language is embedded in the proprietary application that you are forbidden to reverse engineer, how can you possibly create a 100% compatible implementation without violating some license, what is a better definition of a proprietary and closed "language" or whatever you want to call it? See also "Boron is a scripting language similar to REBOL."
http://urlan.sourceforge.net/boron/ and "ORCA is an interpreter for a REBOL-like language."
http://freshmeat.net/projects/rebol-orca/ I cannot find any implementation of rebol yet.
James Michael DuPont (
talk) 19:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Andreas, you are missing the point. Mdupont actually did not find anything he could list as confusing, as he actually confirmed. The proprietarity of the REBOL/Core interpreter and other implementations was described in the article before he misused the "Confusing" tag. After he made his edits, the tag became appropriate, though, since:
According to the Wikipedia:External links page, the RIX link shall not be included, since:
Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 09:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if it is legitimate to base this article based on primary sources, meaning the main webpage and authors statements, I think we should remove things that are based on the main webpage and only use secondary neutral sources, what do you think? James Michael DuPont ( talk) 17:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"...base this article based..." - what exactly does that formulation mean? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 21:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding "primary sources, meaning ... and authors statements":
Regarding the "we should remove things that are based on the main webpage": Checking the references to the official webpage I found out, that there are two, both of them referring to the license to the REBOL/Core and REBOL/View interpreters. Since these may indeed be considered "primary sources" we may consider removing the statements mentioning the license properties ("proprietary etc.") from the article. That does not look like a problem, taking into account, that the article shall describe the language, not the interpreter(s). Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 01:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Surely it is time to say that Red/System exists as the first step to replace Rebol because work on Rebol stopped in ... and state the date Carl went silent. The month and year will do.
Apache announces when projects go into the 'attic' and Apache Jakarta even announced it's own retirement on its own project page. So there is ample precedent - at least in the open software field. Apache posts warnings that projects are inactive ( as is Jelly executable XML on this date) and sourceforge.net shows activity.
All that can be said of Rebol is that Sassenrath's two blogs went silent after the posts of Mar 28, 2011 for Rebol and Feb 20, 2011 for Rebol 3.0
Added July 5, 2012
Rebol developers using existing R3 alpha can be seen at http://www.rebol.org/aga-groups-index.r?world=r4wp
For some time there was an "Entwicklung" link visible at saphirion.com ( formerly Robert Muensch Associates ?) mapped to ./development
None of the above appears to involve updates to the non-open-source or proprietary Rebol codebase for Rebol2 or the Rebol3 alpha.
G. Robert Shiplett 22:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
These facts were discovered:
In the sense of I know that I know nothing it would be interesting to establish, whether:
However, the discovered facts justify me to:
Peta 77.104.243.33 ( talk) 09:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I give. If you put back the neutral one mentioning both viewpoints I won't fight you.
Kleg ( talk) 18:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Kleg. It is nice of you. But, when I wanted to start adding the text I perceived as NPOV I found this: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." [1]
Thus, an attempt to write the subject in a NPOV manner would require to use reliable sources anyway.
Summary of findings:
Due to the lack of reliable sources I admit, that I was wrong offering the option to write the subject in a NPOV, so now the question arises, what can be done about it.
Peta 77.104.243.33 ( talk) 10:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Rebol is not free software, it is proprietory. The fact that the core is not open is pretty ovious, there are attempts at building free software implementations (oscar) etc, but they are not rebol proper, the product rebol is owned by a company and it is not free. That is why I updated the web page. Before changing it back, please discuss here.
mike James Michael DuPont ( talk) 03:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The subject of the article is a programming language/data exchange language. Your statement that the language is "software" is mistaken. The fact that a programming language has one or more interpreters does not make it "software".
Your edits are inappropriate, since:
Summing all the above up, I see your editing attempts as willful infringements of Wikipedia policies. I sincerely hope, that you don't continue using such practices here. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 00:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I have tagged this article as confusing, I felt misled by it and it is not clear as to the licensing and openness of "rebol". It needs to be clear that there is no independent standard for the language (like c for example), that the name is a trademarked product, it is not free software and there are all types of restrictions on its usage, distribution and decompilation. please do not remove this until we have clearly marked and classified this article so that people can see immediately that it is not free software or an open standard. James Michael DuPont ( talk) 05:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
As said, the results of original research are unwelcome here. The status(es) of (different) interpreter(s) is (are) already mentioned in the article. Stop continuing the policy of pushing such a research here as something "true". Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 07:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
As for the "suggestions may be found on the talk page" - that is untrue. The above user did not propose anything Verified, he is just pushing again a result of his original research. His attempts to push his "truth" using this method are still the same as before: the attempts to push somebody's original research to the article no matter what. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 07:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the "I felt misled by it". What exactly did you find misleading? Was it the "The major REBOL implementation is a proprietary[7] interpreter"? As to the "openness" word - where exactly did you find that word used misleadingly in the article? On the other hand, a statement like: "the ... language is ... software" you try to push is misleading and not even controversial, just verifiably false. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 14:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
What was it you found unclear in the question which formulation in the article you found confusing? As for the above completely inaccurate informations, I verified e.g. the trademark with USPTO, and guess what? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
REBOL/View 2.7.7.3.1 1-Jan-2010 Copyright 2000-2010 REBOL Technologies. All rights reserved. REBOL is a trademark of REBOL Technologies. WWW.REBOL.COM
http://www.rebol.com/docs/sdk/encap.html
REBOL is a trademark of REBOL Technologies.
http://softinnov.org/rebol/index.shtml
REBOL is a registered trademark of REBOL Technologies . Designed by Carl Sassenrath , REBOL is the Relative Expression Based Object Language.
http://www.rebol.org/art-display-article.r?article=cv6t
and dont forget the license :
http://www.rebol.com/license.html
Trademarks The REBOL name and the REBOL logo are registered trademarks ® of REBOL Technologies.
You dont need to register a trademark with the uspo to claim it is yours. see Unregistered_trade_mark.
18:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
James Michael DuPont ( talk) 18:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.trademarkia.com/r-76063377.html The trademarks are dead according to this site, but that does not mean you can just take them. http://www.trademarkia.com/company-rebol-technologies-1020524-page-1-2 James Michael DuPont ( talk) 18:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 20:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
{{Infobox programming language}}
. That means the main product that implements it is proprietary, just like rebol. There are also free alternatives to matlab, look at this wording "There are also free open source alternatives to MATLAB, in particular GNU Octave, FreeMat, and Scilab which are intended to be mostly compatible with the MATLAB language (but not the MATLAB desktop environment)." I think we need something like that, gnu octave is also very similar but not quite matlab. The article mentions red, but on the red webpage "The syntax is almost the same as the one used by REBOL language, as the lexer (LOAD) is currently provided by REBOL during the bootstrapping phase. The REBOL syntax doesn't have a formal specification nor an exhaustive documentation, just a superficial description, but it is enough to work with."
http://static.red-lang.org/red-system-specs.html, how can you call it a language without a public specification? The definition of the rebol language is embedded in the proprietary application that you are forbidden to reverse engineer, how can you possibly create a 100% compatible implementation without violating some license, what is a better definition of a proprietary and closed "language" or whatever you want to call it? See also "Boron is a scripting language similar to REBOL."
http://urlan.sourceforge.net/boron/ and "ORCA is an interpreter for a REBOL-like language."
http://freshmeat.net/projects/rebol-orca/ I cannot find any implementation of rebol yet.
James Michael DuPont (
talk) 19:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Andreas, you are missing the point. Mdupont actually did not find anything he could list as confusing, as he actually confirmed. The proprietarity of the REBOL/Core interpreter and other implementations was described in the article before he misused the "Confusing" tag. After he made his edits, the tag became appropriate, though, since:
According to the Wikipedia:External links page, the RIX link shall not be included, since:
Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 09:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if it is legitimate to base this article based on primary sources, meaning the main webpage and authors statements, I think we should remove things that are based on the main webpage and only use secondary neutral sources, what do you think? James Michael DuPont ( talk) 17:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"...base this article based..." - what exactly does that formulation mean? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 21:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding "primary sources, meaning ... and authors statements":
Regarding the "we should remove things that are based on the main webpage": Checking the references to the official webpage I found out, that there are two, both of them referring to the license to the REBOL/Core and REBOL/View interpreters. Since these may indeed be considered "primary sources" we may consider removing the statements mentioning the license properties ("proprietary etc.") from the article. That does not look like a problem, taking into account, that the article shall describe the language, not the interpreter(s). Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 01:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Surely it is time to say that Red/System exists as the first step to replace Rebol because work on Rebol stopped in ... and state the date Carl went silent. The month and year will do.
Apache announces when projects go into the 'attic' and Apache Jakarta even announced it's own retirement on its own project page. So there is ample precedent - at least in the open software field. Apache posts warnings that projects are inactive ( as is Jelly executable XML on this date) and sourceforge.net shows activity.
All that can be said of Rebol is that Sassenrath's two blogs went silent after the posts of Mar 28, 2011 for Rebol and Feb 20, 2011 for Rebol 3.0
Added July 5, 2012
Rebol developers using existing R3 alpha can be seen at http://www.rebol.org/aga-groups-index.r?world=r4wp
For some time there was an "Entwicklung" link visible at saphirion.com ( formerly Robert Muensch Associates ?) mapped to ./development
None of the above appears to involve updates to the non-open-source or proprietary Rebol codebase for Rebol2 or the Rebol3 alpha.
G. Robert Shiplett 22:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |