Re: Cobol 85 Standard

"tim" <TimJ@internet.com> wrote in message
news:13u3d702beqth38@corp.supernews.com...
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:11:27 +0000, William M. Klein wrote:
> 
>
> 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."