[comp.lang.c] copyrighting standards to avoid their modification

gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (02/02/88)

> There is also a specific problem with the release of machine-readable forms
> of standards:  the possibility of mutated versions without warnings of the
> mutations.  This is, unfortunately, *not* an imaginary problem; it really
> has happened.  At least some of the people involved in setting ANSI and
> IEEE policy on such things consider this the more important consideration,
> or so I am told.

There's an easy fix for this:  They just copyright the standard, release
the machine-readable forms, but only give permission to distribute
*unmodified* copies.

If somebody runs it through a document scanner and distributes perfect,
machine-readable copies (unlikely, given the current state of document
scanning), what are they going to do, sue the guy for copyright violation?
Gee, that's just what they would have to do to stop somebody who distributed
a *modified* machine readable copy, had they released one.

So that can't be the reason.  I still think it's pure profit motive, and
wonder that the committee of our peers who wrote it don't claim their
own copyright on it, permitting redistribution, and only allow ANSI to
distribute it if ANSI permits it to be redistributed.  Sort of like the
GNU copyright...
-- 
{pyramid,ptsfa,amdahl,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu			  gnu@toad.com
		"Watch me change my world..." -- Liquid Theatre

henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/04/88)

> ... just copyright the standard, release
> the machine-readable forms, but only give permission to distribute
> *unmodified* copies.

"If they ban guns, how will we protect ourselves from burglars?"
"Just ban burglars!"			- Russell Myers, in Broom-Hilda

The careful, ethical people who meticulously observe things like copyright
and redistribution restrictions are not the problem.

> If somebody runs it through a document scanner and distributes perfect,
> machine-readable copies (unlikely, given the current state of document
> scanning), what are they going to do, sue the guy for copyright violation?
> Gee, that's just what they would have to do to stop somebody who distributed
> a *modified* machine readable copy, had they released one.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here; are you saying "this is silly,
because machine-readable copies can be had anyway, it's just harder"?  If
so, I agree with the facts but not the evaluation.  The key word is "harder".
There's never any way to stop the turkeys completely; all you can do is
make it more difficult.

> So that can't be the reason.  I still think it's pure profit motive...

I didn't say it was *the* reason, I said it was *a* reason.  Profit motive
(or rather non-profit motive) undoubtedly is an important factor.  I was
just pointing out that there are real reasons other than that, too.

> [I] wonder that the committee of our peers who wrote it don't claim their
> own copyright on it, permitting redistribution, and only allow ANSI to
> distribute it if ANSI permits it to be redistributed...

Could it be that they think ANSI is useful and should be allowed to make a
bit of money to keep itself going?
-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
condemned to reinvent it, poorly.    | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry