Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: ANSI C spec
Message-ID: <6225@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Dec-85 17:41:23 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.6225
Posted: Thu Dec 12 17:41:23 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Dec-85 17:41:23 EST
References: <875@dataioDataio.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 38

> 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.