bright@dataioDataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) (12/11/85)
Being involved in the compiler business, I have a lot of interest in the new C standard. On the whole, I think it's pretty good, except for the statement in the front that 'This document may be reproduced only for purposes relevant to the standardization process.' The whole point of the standard is so that compilers match it as close as possible. This includes the documentation. The easiest and surest way to make the documentation conform is to copy sections of the manual where appropriate. The problem is that portions of the C spec seem to be word for word from the ATT manuals, which are copyrighted, and also that statement above. Is the spec copyrighted, even though there is no copyright notice in it? Does the statement in the spec about reproducing the document hold any legal water without a prominent copyright notice? Why would the ANSI committee wish to restrict reproduction of the text anyway? Has ATT given up copyright rights to the sections that originally came from their manuals? I'm sure this problem has arisen with previous specs. Anybody know how it got resolved? I have written the ANSI committee about this, with no response. It sure is a pain trying to write 'same only different' descriptions of library routines.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (12/13/85)
> Being involved in the compiler business, I have a lot of interest in > the new C standard. On the whole, I think it's pretty good, except > for the statement in the front that 'This document may be reproduced > only for purposes relevant to the standardization process.' The whole > point of the standard is so that compilers match it as close as > possible. This includes the documentation. The easiest and surest way > to make the documentation conform is to copy sections of the manual > where appropriate.... You have missed an important point: the current output of X3J11 is **NOT** a standard, it is a **DRAFT**. You should *not* be excerpting from it to build your own documentation, because a particular draft is not necessarily representative of the final standard. Earlier in the same sentence are the words: ...the contents are subject to change without notice. *Readers are requested not to specify or claim conformance to this document*... [emphasis added] The "standardization purposes only" might possibly also reflect protection of the AT&T copyrighted material that the standard incorporates. > Is the spec copyrighted, even though there is no copyright notice > in it? If you check US copyright law, I believe you will find that copyright does not require the notice any more. > Does the statement in the spec about reproducing the document hold > any legal water without a prominent copyright notice? Given copyright, it holds water regardless of presence or absence of notice. > Why would the ANSI committee wish to restrict reproduction of the > text anyway? Because (a) it's not final, and (b) AT&T may have placed restrictions on the use of material from its copyrighted manual.
mats@fortune.UUCP (Mats Wichmann) (12/18/85)
Re: "copyright" spec...
It seems to be common practice to restrict the use of standards
that are still in the working stage (i.e. - "not-yet-approved").
People getting a copy of the spec to read can bee considered
part of the standardization process, but people duplicating
part of an unapproved (and probably still inaccurate) spec
and using it as part of their documentation will have a negative
effect on the process (the "well, x and y and z are using such-and-such
a feature, and they have shipped 14,237 compilers done that
way, so we can't really change that any more, even though it
was wrong in the draft they used" syndrome).
I think you will find the restrictions lightened when the
standard is actually approved.
Mats Wichmann
Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,hplabs,dual}!fortune!mats