who owns C

[Maboroshi]

Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

Thank You if you reply

[Emmanuel Delahaye]

In 'comp.lang.c', "Maboroshi" <n/a> wrote:

Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

There is no more "ANSI C". There is ISO C that is own by the ISO
(International Standard Organization). It belongs to mankind.

--
-ed- get my email here: http://marreduspam.com/ad672570
The C-language FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
C-reference: http://www.dinkumware.com/manuals/reader.aspx?lib=c99
FAQ de f.c.l.c : http://www.isty-info.uvsq.fr/~rumeau/fclc/

[Keith Thompson]

Emmanuel Delahaye <em**********@n oos.fr> writes:

In 'comp.lang.c', "Maboroshi" <n/a> wrote:

Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

There is no more "ANSI C". There is ISO C that is own by the ISO
(International Standard Organization). It belongs to mankind.

No, it belongs to ISO; the rest of mankind has to pay ISO (or a
national body) to get a copy of it.

ANSI is the US national standards body, a member of ISO. The ISO C
standard was adopted (automatically? ) as an ANSI standard. It's more
accurate to refer to it as ISO C, but calling it ANSI C is not
entirely wrong. (I may have some of the details wrong.)

BTW, "ISO" is officially not an acronym; the organization's full name
is "Internatio nal Organization for Standardization " in English,
"Organisati on internationale de normalisation" in French.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Dan Pop]

In <94************ *************** *****@4ax.com> Mark McIntyre <ma**********@s pamcop.net> writes:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 06:42:47 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> wrote:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
> The current version of the ISO C specification is available in both
> electronic and printed form, at cost, and it is copyrighted work.

A small quibble: The phrase "at cost" usually implies that the buyer
pays only the costs of production, and that the seller doesn't make a
profit. At $18 for the PDF, and substantially more for a hard copy,
the price you pay more than covers the cost of producing it.
I wonder in how far that remains true when you add in all those
Committee members' packed lunches.

... and if Dan thinks that $18 is not "at cost", he apparently doesn't know
much about book publishing.

First, it is not Dan who made any comments about costs and prices, but
expecting our resident idiot to follow the attributions in a thread is
completely unrealistic...

The PDF sold for $18 comes for free to ANSI. The only costs involved
are those related to the processing of the transaction and the actual
data transfer (both are probably peanuts).
My wife works in the field & my parents in law
run a small publishing company, and for small-volume multifont print jobs,
the printing costs alone are high enough to make you wince, never mind the
cost of technical proofreaders and editors capable of understanding the
subject matter but still able to edit. $200 is cheap compared to some books
my wife has edited.

Except that the editing work is already done by the C standard editor.
All organisations selling printed copies of the standard have to do is
actually print it. I have no clue how close the $200 are to the cost of
the printing, but, then again, I've never made any comments on this
topic.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Dan Pop]

In <Xn************ *************** @212.27.42.66> Emmanuel Delahaye <em**********@n oos.fr> writes:

In 'comp.lang.c', "Maboroshi" <n/a> wrote:

Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company
There is no more "ANSI C".

Huh?!? What happened to the C89 specification? Was it renamed in the
meantime?
There is ISO C that is own by the ISO
(Internation al Standard Organization). It belongs to mankind.

These sentences are mutually contradictory.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Mark McIntyre]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:38:38 -0400, in comp.lang.c , Allin Cottrell
<co******@wfu.e du> wrote:

I believe you're confused regarding the quotation levels. It was Dan
who initially claimed the C standard was available at cost, and Keith
Thompson who thought the $18 for the PDF must embody a profit margin.

My apologies to Dan, and contumely is heaped instead on Keith !
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.c om/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc. html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Keith Thompson]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@s pamcop.net> writes:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:38:38 -0400, in comp.lang.c , Allin Cottrell
<co******@wfu.e du> wrote:

I believe you're confused regarding the quotation levels. It was Dan
who initially claimed the C standard was available at cost, and Keith
Thompson who thought the $18 for the PDF must embody a profit margin.

My apologies to Dan, and contumely is heaped instead on Keith !

Where it is equally undeserved.

I don't know, or particularly care, whether the $18 includes a profit
margin or not. My guess is that it does.

The original confusion, I think, was that Dan mistakenly used the
phrase "at cost" to mean "at a cost" (i.e., not free (that's
free-as-in-beer)), whereas my understanding is that the phrase implies
that the price covers only the marginal cost of production.

I paid my $18 several years ago, and at this point I don't
particularly care what they did with the money. (And if you want to
talk about whether the standard *should* be free, look through the
comp.std.c archives, where it's already been discussed to death.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Keith Thompson]

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

In <Xn************ *************** @212.27.42.66> Emmanuel Delahaye
<em**********@n oos.fr> writes:

[...]

There is no more "ANSI C".

Huh?!? What happened to the C89 specification? Was it renamed in the
meantime?

I thought ANSI officially adopted the ISO C90 specification when it
came out -- and also officially adopted the C99 specification as an
ANSI standard.

I don't know whether this makes it incorrect refer to C89 as "ANSI C".

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Dan Pop]

In <ln************ @nuthaus.mib.or g> Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> writes:

Da*****@cern.c h (Dan Pop) writes:

In <Xn************ *************** @212.27.42.66> Emmanuel Delahaye
<em**********@n oos.fr> writes:[...]

>There is no more "ANSI C".

Huh?!? What happened to the C89 specification? Was it renamed in the
meantime?

I thought ANSI officially adopted the ISO C90 specification when it
came out -- and also officially adopted the C99 specification as an
ANSI standard.

But this fact didn't change the name of that specification. It continued
to be ISO C9[09] even after the adoption by ANSI. The title page of your
$18 version bought from ANSI must look approximately like this:

INTERNATIONAL ISO/IEC
STANDARD 9899

Second edition
1999-12-01




Programming languages - C

Langages de programmation - C




Processed and adopted by ASC the National Committee for
Information Technology Standards (NCITS) and approved by
ANSI as an American National Standard.

Date of ANSI Approval: 5/22/2000

Published by American National Standards Institute,
11 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036

Copyright 2000 by Information Technology Industry Council
(ITI). All rights reserved.

These materials are subject to copyright claims of
International Standardization Organization (ISO), International
Electrotechnica l Commission (IEC), American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), and Information Technology Industry Council
(ITI). Not for resale. No part of this publication may be
reproduced in any form, including an electronic retrieval
system, without the prior written permission of ITI. All
requests pertaining to this standard should be submitted to ITI,
1250 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.

Printed in the United States of America



Reference number
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)

© ISO/IEC 1999

I don't know whether this makes it incorrect refer to C89 as "ANSI C".

It is the *only* C specification elaborated by ANSI and, therefore, the
only one deserving the informal name of "ANSI C". Also note that *all*
these names are informal, the formal ones looking as in the above quote:
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E) or ANSI X3.159-1989.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Keith Thompson]

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

In <ln************ @nuthaus.mib.or g> Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> writes: [...]

I thought ANSI officially adopted the ISO C90 specification when it
came out -- and also officially adopted the C99 specification as an
ANSI standard.

But this fact didn't change the name of that specification. It continued
to be ISO C9[09] even after the adoption by ANSI. The title page of your
$18 version bought from ANSI must look approximately like this:

INTERNATIONAL ISO/IEC
STANDARD 9899

Second edition

[snip] Processed and adopted by ASC the National Committee for
Information Technology Standards (NCITS) and approved by
ANSI as an American National Standard.

Date of ANSI Approval: 5/22/2000

Published by American National Standards Institute,
11 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036

[...]

Yes.

I don't know whether this makes it incorrect refer to C89 as "ANSI C".

It is the *only* C specification elaborated by ANSI and, therefore, the
only one deserving the informal name of "ANSI C". Also note that *all*
these names are informal, the formal ones looking as in the above quote:
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E) or ANSI X3.159-1989.

I'm not sure what you mean by "elaborated by" in this context. C99 is
"approved by ANSI as an American National Standard".

One could argue that the phrase "ANSI C" therefore refers to ISO/IEC
9899:1999(E), though I understand that common usage uses the term
"ANSI C" for ANSI X3.159-1989.

Personally, I avoid the issue by referring only to "ISO C", and
specifying C90 or C99 as necessary.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:39:02 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.or g> wrote:

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@s pamcop.net> writes:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:38:38 -0400, in comp.lang.c , Allin Cottrell
<co******@wfu.e du> wrote:

>I believe you're confused regarding the quotation levels. It was Dan
>who initially claimed the C standard was available at cost, and Keith
>Thompson who thought the $18 for the PDF must embody a profit margin.
My apologies to Dan, and contumely is heaped instead on Keith !

Where it is equally undeserved.

Its my day for apologising. Earlier on I tripped over a coat stand, and one
of the coat-hanger bits stabbed a co-worker in the face, piercing his
cheek.... yech!
I don't know, or particularly care, whether the $18 includes a profit
margin or not. My guess is that it does.

Makes sense to include one. Otherwise how to fund the next round of
committees?

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.c om/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc. html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---