🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 843@News1.mcs.net, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>In article <3v34bt$ebb@offas_dike.sbil.co.uk>, shepherd@debussy.sbi.com 
>says...
>>
>>In article 46g@News1.mcs.net, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>>
>>...a few inaccuracies that beg to be corrected:
>>
>>>In article <3urhoc$kpu@info1.sdrc.com>, scjones@thor.sdrc.com says...
>>>
>>>Is Tom Plum the owner of Plum Hall, Inc. in Hawaii? Does he sell the
>>>the C++ Standard Class Library source code that Bill (P.J.) Plauger
>>>has copyrighted in the proposed ANSI C++ Standard?
>>
>>Yes, it is the same Tom Plum.  But, note that Plauger's copyrights do
>>not prevent you or I (or anyone) from developing their own implementations
>>of the standard.  If it did, then everyone developing a C++ compiler--
>>from Microsoft, to Sun, to Tartan Labs, to GNU--would owe a cut to P. J.
>>Plauger.  I'm sure any representative of these entities can confirm that
>>they are not paying Plauger a blessed thing.
>
>Do they have to reference the copyright?

No, they do not.

>
>Do they have to get permission to use the copyrighted material?

No, they do not.

>
>If so, is that permission granted freely to everyone?

The permission to develop one's own implementation of the standard
is indeed granted freely to everyone.  In a similar vein, I believe
ISO has a standard for the Metric System, and that standard is copyrighted;
but, you don't have to get permission from them to make your own ruler!

>	If so, what is the purpose of having a copyright?

The copyright protects:
	1. P.J. Plauger's prose description of the standard library.
	2. P.J. Plauger's implementation of the standard library.

So, you could not re-use his descriptions or implementation without
getting his permission or paying him a fee; this is the purpose of
the copyright.

The copyright does not, however, prevent you from developing your own
implementation of the standard, or from writing your own descriptions
of it.

>
>BTW, what does the copyright cover?
>	Class names?

No.

>	Member function (method) names?

No.

>	Just the documentation?

Yes.

>
>Another poster claimed that ANSI and ISO hold the copyright. Has it
>been transferred?

P.J. Plauger has given ANSI/ISO permission to use some stuff that he
wrote; they didn't pay him anything for this--and indeed, he should have
paid *them*, for the publicity of having his name embossed on every copy
of the standard that gets sold.

The copyright hasn't been transferred per se--he is still selling the
same prose as part of his book, "The Annotated Draft C++ Standard Library."
But Jim, he doesn't own the class or member names--why can't you get
that straight???  His copyrights cannot and will not prevent the free
development of C++ implementations.


---
Marc Shepherd
Salomon Brothers Inc
shepherd@schubert.sbi.com	<<These are my opinions, not my employer's.>>