In article <3prrpg$kbc@giga.bga.com>, Jamshid Afshar <jamshid@ses.com> wrote:

>The question I still have is will the final C++ standard be made
>available electronically to committee members?

 Yes, I expect so: it will be necessary for the final review.

>Will an electronic
>copy be made available or for sale to non members?  Does ISO restrict
>the distribution of the document (has anyone ever tried to get
>permission to freely redistribute a document copyrighted by them
>electronically)?

 Absolutely no chance of free copies.
ISO _sells_ its exclusive rights to member
National Bodies, which then on-sell copies of the document to
their customers. Thats how they make money.

>I believe ANSI has restrictions on electronic distribution, but if
>some ISO member gets a copy of the Standard and they put it on their
>Web site, ANSI can't do anything about it, right?

 Standards Australia might make a CD-ROM copy of the
C++ Standard. There is NO chance there will be a legal electronic
copy available on any FTP site. Perhaps in the future when
accesses to electronic copies can be charged for this may happen.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

In article <D8Ju9x.HF9@ucc.su.OZ.AU>,
John Max Skaller <maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <KANZE.95May11180040@slsvhdt.lts.sel.alcatel.de>,
>James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763 <kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de> wrote:
...
>>HP has graciously agreed to allow free use of these copyrights,
>>and in fact,
>>has made its (presumably copyrighted) implementation available in the
>>public domain.
>
>The PD implementation is copyright HP who expressly grant the right
>to copy.

Since this discussion is about technicalities, let me just add that a
work cannot be both in the public domain and copyrighted.  HP's
implementation is not in the public domain (it's copyrighted) but
permission to distribute, modify, and even sell their code is granted.

In article <KANZE.95May11180040@slsvhdt.lts.sel.alcatel.de> kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de (James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763) writes:
>I don't particularly like this arrangement.  I find it particularly
>annoying that I have to pay $300 a year for the right to contribute my
>time and effort to produce a document which I then have buy.  But that
>is the way it is.

You don't "have [to] buy" the standard.  The published standard will be
practically identical to the final draft, which you will have received as a
result of your membership on the committee.  So you can use that copy as a
reference rather than buying a new copy from ANSI.
--
Barry Margolin
BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA
barmar@bbnplanet.com

In article <KANZE.95May11180040@slsvhdt.lts.sel.alcatel.de>,
James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763 <kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de> wrote:

>2. The (approuved) standard *is* copyrighted, by ANSI/ISO.

 The "International Standard" is copyrighted by ISO.
It then sells the rights to derive works to member National Standards
Bodies such as ANSI and Standards Australia. Such bodies can
create their own standard form the ISO Standard or just
release the official ISO document. In the past Standards Australia
has created Australian Standards for popular documents because
it can make more money on them -- and sell them cheaper -- than
official ISO Standards. For example there is an Australian C Standard,
it differs from the ISO C Standard only in the title page.

>I don't particularly like this arrangement.  I find it particularly
>annoying that I have to pay $300 a year for the right to contribute my
>time and effort to produce a document which I then have buy.  But that
>is the way it is.

 Don't be silly -- YOU will get a free copy electonically,
and probably in the mailing.

>I don't know what ANSI/ISO's policy is on copying parts of the
>document into other works.  I know it can be done, since others
>(Schildt, Plauger) have done it with the C standard; I suppose that
>they had to get permission from ANSI or ISO.

 In Australia copy small portions of copyright works
is permitted. Copying whole parts of it is not. You can "quote"
but you cannot reproduce.

>4. Parts of the STL are patented by Hewlett Packard.

 No. The HP implementation of STL -- which is the
PD version -- contains a patented algorithm. HP has licenced
the world to use the algorithm for nothing.

>HP has graciously agreed to allow free use of these copyrights,
>and in fact,
>has made its (presumably copyrighted) implementation available in the
>public domain.

The PD implementation is copyright HP who expressly grant the right
to copy.

>
>As for the accusations that we are all in it for the money...

 Of course we are. So what?

 The purpose of ISO in administering International
Standards is to improve the quality of life around the world
by facilitating efficient, safe, and fair use of resources.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

Rather than wasting time answering each individual accusation (only to
have the accusation change in the follow-up), I will point out some
facts concerning the copyright on the proposed standard:

1. Parts of the standard are based on copyrighted material.  In
particular, the base document of the standard is the ARM
(copyrighted), and I believe that parts of the library section are
based on (copyrighted) material in Plauger's book.  Parts of the STL
may be copyrighted by HP, for all I know.

This is not an unusual case, as far as I can tell.  ANSI and/or ISO
have defined procedures for this; in particular, they require a
written statement of copyright waiver (or something like that) in
order to allow the material to appear in the standard.  This procedure
has already been followed.

This means that any such material becomes part of the standard, and
can be used as if it were an original creation of the standards
committee, at least once the standard is approuved.

2. The (approuved) standard *is* copyrighted, by ANSI/ISO.  At least
in the past, these organisms have *not* been willing to have the
standards available electronically.  Why?  Because, unlike the claims
of some posters, they are not financed by your tax dollars, but by the
sale of such standards (and by the membership fees).

I don't particularly like this arrangement.  I find it particularly
annoying that I have to pay $300 a year for the right to contribute my
time and effort to produce a document which I then have buy.  But that
is the way it is.

I don't know what ANSI/ISO's policy is on copying parts of the
document into other works.  I know it can be done, since others
(Schildt, Plauger) have done it with the C standard; I suppose that
they had to get permission from ANSI or ISO.

3. The standard does *not* contain any implementation.  So no matter
what the arrangements with ANSI/ISO, you are *not* free to use the
implementation parts of Plauger's book without his authorization.

4. Parts of the STL are patented by Hewlett Packard.  HP has
graciously agreed to allow free use of these copyrights, and in fact,
has made its (presumably copyrighted) implementation available in the
public domain.

As for the accusations that we are all in it for the money...

It's true that if it were not for the money, I wouldn't use C++.  Nor
any other computer language, for that matter.  I actually hope that my
participation on the committee will help me in the future, e.g.: it
looks good on my resume.  And I've certainly learned a lot by working
with the other committee members.  But that's really not a lot to show
for $300/year, plus the time and effort.

For people like Plauger and Plum, I imagine that the balance is even
more negative.  Both have invested considerably more time and effort
than I have, and neither really needs to make a name for themselves
any more.  And how many people have gotten rich writing technical
books?

As for the big players, frankly, I wonder how they justify their
activities to their stockholders.  AT&T is not in the C++ market in
any way that I can see.  (They don't have a C++ to sell, for example.)
Yet they have continued to allow their employees (particularly Bjarne
and Andy Koenig) to invest significant amounts of time (paid by AT&T)
in the effort.  Compilers are hardly more than a necessary evil at
Siemens Nixdorf (a hardware manufacturer), but they picked up all of
the costs of the international mailings for a long time (not to
mention the time contributed by their employees).  HP probably could
have made a significant amount of money selling their implementation
of STL; the decision to adapt STL was made *before* they released
their implementation into the public domain.  I could name a number of
other companies, big and small, whose contributions probably outweigh
the benefits they will reap.  (I rather suspect that in some cases,
the companies consider the right to participate in the standards
effort as a fringe benefit they offer certain employees, rather than a
direct investment.)
--
James Kanze         Tel.: (+33) 88 14 49 00        email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs-Bourgeois, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle --
                              -- Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung