From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How to challenge a GCC patch? Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2021 04:14:59 -0500 Organization: JSA Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2021 09:15:00 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk; posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226"; logging-data="29765"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.7246 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62922 List-Id: "J-P. Rosen" wrote in message news:sj6l3g$f9g$1@dont-email.me... > Le 01/10/2021 à 02:30, Randy Brukardt a écrit : >> Umm, someone is confusing the original ASIS drafts with the ISO Standard >> (which has an ISO copyright with no exceptions). I would definitely not >> reference the ISO Standard in anything you are freely giving away -- >> there >> are copyright trolls out there that could easily decide to get your >> material >> banned from the Internet. >> > Strangely enough, my copy of ISO 15291 has no copyright statement at all; > might be a "last draft" version. > > However, the headers of every ASIS-for-Gnat package state: > "This specification is adapted from the Ada Semantic > Interface Specification Standard (ISO/IEC 15291) for use with GNAT. In > accordance with the copyright of that document, you can freely copy and > modify this specification, provided that if you redistribute a modified > version, any changes that you have made are clearly indicated." > > (and since that statement dates back to Robert Dewar's times, I'm pretty > certain it is reliable). I'm certain that is something that predates the ISO version of ASIS. There's no such permission in the ISO document that I was sent as editor during our last (aborted) revision attempt. Robert probably was using the pre-ISO version as the source, all > My memory is that all "interesting" part of the standard was deliberatly > put as comments in the specification, precisely to circumvent the ISO > copyright, and allow the use of ASIS without paying an outrageous price to > ISO. I don't see how using comments helps anything. The Oracle case makes it pretty clear an API iteself can be covered by a copyright, and surely the comments are covered by the copyright. And the ISO version has no copyright statement other than the usual "All rights reserved". Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and cannot say anything for certain in these matters. Randy.