I'm also unaware of any other language (at least of recent vintage that
lots
of people care about) that charges anyone to see the official language
specification (Java, .NET languages, etc.).
I think making copies of theCOBOL docs and practically inviting someone to
sue you would almost be humorous in its absurdity. Certainly falls into
the
"who cares" bucket.
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:64ev1sF2blnm5U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> "tim" <TimJ@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:13u3d702beqth38@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:11:27 +0000, William M. Klein wrote:
>>
>>> Tim,
>>> Actually, for the '85 Standard (not the '02 Standard), I think that
>>> the
>>> "Acknowledgement" does allow you to share copies. I have a PDF that I
>>> was
>>> thinking of posting but am not certain my webspace has enough room.
>>>
>>
>> The document contradicts itself on this point. On one page it says it
may
>> be freely copied in part or in full:
>>
>> "ACKNOWLEDGMENT
>>
>> Any organization interested in reproducing the COBOL standard and
>> specifications in whole or in part, using ideas from this docu- ment as
>> the basis for an instruction manual OI for any other purpose, is free
to
>> do so. However, all such organizations are requested to reproduce the
>> following acknowledgment paragraphs in their entirety as part of the
>> preface to any such publication (any organiza- tion using a short
>> passagefrom this document, such as in a book review, is requested to
>> mention "COBOL" in acknowledgment of the source, but need not quote the
>> acknowledgment):
>>
>> COBOL is an industry language and is not the property of any company OI
>> group of companies, or of any organization or group of organizations.
No
>> warranty, expressed or implied, is made by any contributor or by the
>> CODASYL COBOL Committee as to the accuracy and functioning of
>> the programming system and language. Moreover, no responsibility is
>> assumed
>> by any contributor, or by the committee, in connection therewith. The
>> authors and copyright holders of the copyrighted materials used herein
>> FLOW-MATIC (trademark of Sperry Rand Corporation), Programming for the
>> UNIVAC (R) I and II, Data Automation Systems copyrighted 1958,1959, by
>> Sperry Rand Corporation; IBM Commercial Translater Form No F 28-8013,
>> copy-righted 1959 by IBM; FACT, DSI 27A5260-2760, copyrighted 1960 by
>> Minneapolis-Honeywell have specifically authorized the use of this
>> material
>> in whole or in part, in the COBOL specifications. Such authorization
ex-
>> tends to the reproduction and use of COBOL specifications in
programming
>> manuals or similar publications."
>>
>> The next page has the usual copyright notice. Given the draconian
>> penalties
>> for copyright violations I am tending to err on the safe side.
>>
>> "Copyright ©1985 by Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
>> All rights reserved.
>> No part of this publication may be reproduced in any
>> form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise,
>> without prior written permission of ITI, 1250 Eye Street NW,
>> Washington, DC 20005."
>>
>> Is there any way to get some official clarification of this point?
>>
>> Tim
>
> This is a ludicrous abomination of the spirit of COBOL.
>
> Legally, their Copyright is good because they placed it on the material
25
> years after it was originally copyrighted. They would therefore argue
that
> the original copyright was expired, they had complied with the spirit of
> it by reproducing the Acknowledgement, and their right to copyright the
> document you are considering copying is legal.
>
> Nevertheless, it sucks.
>
> I remember the trouble Bill had even getting the original statement
> included in the latest (OK...current...) standard.
>
> It is a sore point, and the inevitable conclusion is that the original
> spirit of CODASYL has long since been hijacked by other interested
> parties.
>
> Of course ANSI/ISO is a non-profit organisation... so the fee they
charge
> for downloading is just to offset legitimate expenses.... yeah, right.
>
> It SHOULD be possible to download or reproduce this document freely, and
> it is in the interests of ANSI/ISO and the COBOL community for it to be
> disseminated. The fact that it isn't, is just indicative of the state of
> COBOL under the guardianship of the current standards authority.
>
> Pete.
> --
> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>
>
|
