foessmei@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Reinhard Foessmeier) (02/06/90)
In article <3109@paperboy.OSF.ORG> martin@osf.org (Sandra Martin) writes:
#I'm looking for a copy of ISO 639, which apparently lists standard
#names for natural languages. I contacted ANSI, but they're currently
#out of stock, so it will take about four weeks to get a copy.
#
#I would really like to get this document sooner. Would anyone happen
#to have an on-line version they could email me? If so, I would greatly
#appreciate it.
#
#***DISCLAIMER: I don't know whether it's considered ethical to get
# a "free" copy of an ISO standard this way. If it's
# not ethical, please disregard this request.
Same reservations applying -- I'd be interested, too, and certainly so
would be others. So why not post it instead of mailing?
________
Reinhard F\"ossmeier, Technische Univ. M\"unchen | "Sendmail can safely be made
foessmeier@infovax.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de | setuid to root" (E. Allman:
[ { relay.cs.net | unido.uucp } ] | SM Install&Operation Guide)news@haddock.ima.isc.com (overhead) (02/08/90)
In article <1091@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> foessmei@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Reinhard Foessmeier) writes: >In article <3109@paperboy.OSF.ORG> martin@osf.org (Sandra Martin) writes: > >Same reservations applying -- I'd be interested, too, and certainly so >would be others. So why not post it instead of mailing? >________ I've seen this request often enough that it should probably be in the most frequently asked questions list. The problem is that ISO documentation is copyrighted. It is not legal to send copies that haven't been paid for. I personally object to the use of copyrights by ISO. I certainly impedes the flow of information. If ISO really wants their protocols to gain widespread acceptance they should make it easier to implement them. Jim
balavi@PacBell.COM (Behzad Alavi) (02/09/90)
>In article <3109@paperboy.OSF.ORG> martin@osf.org (Sandra Martin) writes: > >#I'm looking for a copy of ISO 639, which apparently lists standard >#names for natural languages. I contacted ANSI, but they're currently >#out of stock, so it will take about four weeks to get a copy. ># OMNICOM (Tel: 1-800-OMN-ICOM, or 1-800-666-4266) is authorized to distribute ISO/IEC standards. One minor problem that I've had with such documents is the "COPY QUALITY" of distributed material. In a specific case it was a copy-of-a-copy that was reduced in size to fit two pages in one. As a result it was very hard and undesirable to read. >#***DISCLAIMER: I don't know whether it's considered ethical to get ># a "free" copy of an ISO standard this way. If it's ># not ethical, please disregard this request. Somebody had correctly pointed out whether it is EVEN ETHICAL for the International Standards to be copyrighted in the first place! Copyrights seem to limit the scope of distribution and usage, which are apparently not what International Standards were designed to do. I am interested to hear more on this topic. Of course in the U.S., ANSI is a PRIVATE agency. That means it has as much right as any other business entity to collect royalties, copyrights, etc. for any reason. But what about ISO/IEC, etc. What is the justification for "Copyrights" on those documents? -- __ Disclaimer & Copyright 1989 __ Behzad Alavi ...!pacbell!pbhyg!balavi / ) / / / ) /) 2600 Camino Ramon, 3N200A /--< _ /--, -, __) __/ /__/ // __) . San Ramon, Ca. 94583 /___/_(/_/ /___/__(_/__(_/ / /_(/_(_/___\/__/ (415) 823-3053 V3R2
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/09/90)
In article <15894@haddock.ima.isc.com> jimm@ima.ima.isc.com (Jim McGrath) writes: >... If ISO really wants their protocols >to gain widespread acceptance they should make it easier to implement >them. Implement? You think ISO cares about implementation? Couldn't prove it by me, not considering some of the things they put in those protocols. You don't understand: ISO protocols will gain widespread acceptance by being rammed down our throats by politicians, not by being enthusiastically accepted by implementors. That's how ISO works. -- SVR4: every feature you ever | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology wanted, and plenty you didn't.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
ccplumb@lion.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) (02/09/90)
In article <1990Feb8.164921.22689@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > Implement? You think ISO cares about implementation? Couldn't prove it > by me, not considering some of the things they put in those protocols. > You don't understand: ISO protocols will gain widespread acceptance by > being rammed down our throats by politicians, not by being enthusiastically > accepted by implementors. That's how ISO works. I have to agree. Why the U.S. DoD ever decided that they were going to take a well-working Arpanet and redo it using ISO/OSI protocols is beyond me. TCP/IP is relatively simple, understandable and works well. Yes, if you need to, reformat the packets, change the checksum algorithm, or whatever, for your hardware-assisted 1 Gbit gateway, but please find serious problems before fixing them. (I've just been reading the SCSI "standard" and have wondered where standards teams get such sick ideas. I like the Futurebus standard, although they introduce some wierd terminology for cache snooping, I like the ANSI C standard. They both know what they're trying to do (and it's *not* create a standard so vague that everyone's implementation is standard, as crept into IEEE 754 and the extended precision disaster), and it's clear to anyone who understands the field reasonably well. I think a good sign of a bad standard is when they need to invent a lot of terms not commonly in use. Maybe they're solving problems not commonly encountered?) -- -Colin
cowan@marob.masa.com (John Cowan) (02/10/90)
In article <1938@pbhyg.PacBell.COM> balavi@PacBell.COM (Behzad Alavi) writes: > Somebody had correctly pointed out whether it is > EVEN ETHICAL for the International Standards to be > copyrighted in the first place! > > Copyrights seem to limit the scope of distribution > and usage, which are apparently not what International > Standards were designed to do. > > I am interested to hear more on this topic. Of course > in the U.S., ANSI is a PRIVATE agency. That means it > has as much right as any other business entity to collect > royalties, copyrights, etc. for any reason. But > what about ISO/IEC, etc. What is the justification > for "Copyrights" on those documents? They are copyrighted for the same reason translations of the Bible are. If the documents were in the public domain, you could make arbitrary changes to them and then republish the resulting mutilated standard as "ISO nnn" and nothing could be done to stop you. Remember that public-domain doesn't just mean the right to make unlimited copies; it also means the right to make unlimited derivative works. You can publish an edition of Shakespeare's sonnets (public domain) with every instance of "are" changed to "is", and call it "The Original Sonnets by W. Shakespeare". This state of affairs is obviously impossible for something called an "international standard".
news@haddock.ima.isc.com (overhead) (02/13/90)
In article <25D2EBD5.120@marob.masa.com> cowan@marob.masa.com (John Cowan) writes: # #They are copyrighted for the same reason translations of the Bible are. #If the documents were in the public domain, you could make arbitrary changes #to them and then republish the resulting mutilated standard as "ISO nnn" #and nothing could be done to stop you. # It is possible to copyright an item, and assign rights to copy and distribute freely. I have no objection to ISO protecting the text of their documents from modification, but I would greatly prefer to see them more freely available. NIC, to the best of my knowledge, has had no problems with unauthorized changes to the RFCs. # #Remember that public-domain doesn't just mean the right to make unlimited #copies; it also means the right to make unlimited derivative works. You can #publish an edition of Shakespeare's sonnets (public domain) with #every instance of "are" changed to "is", and call it "The Original #Sonnets by W. Shakespeare". # I'm not suggesting that ISO documents be put in the public domain. What I want is for the documents to be freely available to any hacker in the world that wants to do their own implementation. Let the marketplace decide on the utility of a particular implementation. # #This state of affairs is obviously impossible for something called an #"international standard". # Agreed! Jim