Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!abe
From: abe@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Vic Abell)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Re: benchmark evaluations
Message-ID: <6434@mace.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 90 21:36:54 GMT
References: <12220@hubcap.clemson.edu> <44157@mips.mips.COM>
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 18

In article <44157@mips.mips.COM>, mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes:
> 
> The rules are:
> 	In the SPEC Newsletters, numbers are reported for machines
> 	by their own vendors, and they have to fill out the full form,
> 	which includes:

These rules apply to all SPEC license holders, not just vendors.  As I
noted in my previous posting, license holders are more constrained in
reporting SPEC numbers than others, since the SPEC license agreement
specifies a reporting format that takes 8 pages to describe.

The interesting question is whether or not a SPEC license holder must
follow the format when reporting others' SPEC results.  If so, then it
might be hard to avoid violating copyright.

Of course, none of this stops non-licensees (or marketers) from citing
SPEC reports in any fashion.  :-)