I didn't think I should ask this on the REBOL userlist because a) it would be rude, and b) it really has nothing to do with *using* REBOL.

So, should we write a `GNU REBOL' interpreter/compiler? By this I mean an open source REBOL compatible software system.


-- Joe Marshall (, February 04, 1999


GNU != open source

True. I guess I was asking two questions. First, should there be an open source version of REBOL, and, if so, should it follow the GNU model. I'll admit that I have a few problems with the GNU model. Having been in the commercial world, I have found the 'contagion' aspect of the copyleft to be a rather large hurdle. It is great for standalone packages, but it makes it impossible to bundle something for sale. I prefer the `Berkely' style copyright, myself, which is why the code I write usually has that. It is less restrictive than the GNU copyright in terms of commercial use.

-- Joe Marshall (, February 04, 1999.


It's way too soon. Give it a chance to catch on and to mature. If it gets fragmented before it even has a chance to mature, it will die. I know I'll never use it if it loses its portability.

-- Bernie Schneider (, February 04, 1999.

Please, clarify. Open source != GNU. See

-- Jorge Acereda (, February 04, 1999.

An open source REBOL would be great. We could all use REBOL on the OS we wished without needing to ask for a port (VSTa comes to mind, I doubt there will be a REBOL/VSTa in the near future). But IMHO a GNU REBOL would split the relatively small userbase. Anyway, if REBOL succeeds, there will probably be a GNU REBOL once the language specification is mature enough. As Bernie stated, it's too early.

-- Jorge Acereda (, February 05, 1999.

No No No. The License should be Berkeley style. Or better yet, like Python. Completely free for any use. This would great for in house or for commercial software.

-- Karl Wagner (, August 03, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ