Re: Cobol 85 Standard

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@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:64ev1sF2blnm5U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "tim" <TimJ@internet.com> wrote in message
> news:13u3d702beqth38@corp.supernews.com... 
>
> 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."
>
>