«

This is not exactly a question on C++ std, rather it is a
"metaquestion" on C++ std.

The C++ ISO std has a copyright notice saying that "No part of this
publication may be reproduced in any form, including an electronic
retrieval system, without the prior written permission of ITI."

What does this exactly mean? Eg. Suppose I am writing a book on C++.
In my book, I will obviously explain only those things that are in the
standard (I cant invent things and tag them under the name of C++). So
does that mean I need to take a prior permission from the ITI before
writing any such book?

What about writing some article (say on c++-style-casts) in a journal?
on a blog?

May be in my book I will use a different wording at most places to
avoid any copyright violation. But for basic definitions etc, I will
have to use the exact wording from the standard. Also, at certain
places the standard gives very nice examples (code) to demonstrate.
Can't I use this code in my writeups to explain certain concept/idea?

-Neelesh

Neelesh Bodas wrote:
> This is not exactly a question on C++ std, rather it is a
> "metaquestion" on C++ std.
>
> The C++ ISO std has a copyright notice saying that "No part of this
> publication may be reproduced in any form, including an electronic
> retrieval system, without the prior written permission of ITI."
>
> What does this exactly mean? Eg. Suppose I am writing a book on C++.
> In my book, I will obviously explain only those things that are in the
> standard (I cant invent things and tag them under the name of C++). So
> does that mean I need to take a prior permission from the ITI before
> writing any such book?

I believe you (your publisher or their lawyers) need to get familiar
with the concept of "fair use" and apply it.

> What about writing some article (say on c++-style-casts) in a journal?

The journal has a publisher, they have lawyers, ask them.

> on a blog?

Blog? Consult the ISP's user agreement and their rules of conduct.

> May be in my book I will use a different wording at most places to
> avoid any copyright violation. But for basic definitions etc, I will
> have to use the exact wording from the standard. Also, at certain
> places the standard gives very nice examples (code) to demonstrate.
> Can't I use this code in my writeups to explain certain concept/idea?

We quote passages from the Standard all the time here. It all falls
under "fair use", as long as you acknowledge the copyright or at least
don't try to pass it as your own writing.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

On Jul 10, 10:52 pm, "Victor Bazarov" <v.Abaza...@comAcast.net> wrote:

>
> I believe you (your publisher or their lawyers) need to get familiar
> with the concept of "fair use" and apply it.
>
Thanks.

"Neelesh Bodas" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> This is not exactly a question on C++ std, rather it is a
> "metaquestion" on C++ std.
>
> The C++ ISO std has a copyright notice saying that "No part of this
> publication may be reproduced in any form, including an electronic
> retrieval system, without the prior written permission of ITI."
>
> What does this exactly mean? Eg. Suppose I am writing a book on C++.
> In my book, I will obviously explain only those things that are in the
> standard (I cant invent things and tag them under the name of C++). So
> does that mean I need to take a prior permission from the ITI before
> writing any such book?
>
> What about writing some article (say on c++-style-casts) in a journal?
> on a blog?
>
> May be in my book I will use a different wording at most places to
> avoid any copyright violation. But for basic definitions etc, I will
> have to use the exact wording from the standard. Also, at certain
> places the standard gives very nice examples (code) to demonstrate.
> Can't I use this code in my writeups to explain certain concept/idea?
>
> -Neelesh
>


There are certain things that cannot be copyrighted.

For example a phone book. While the style of the phone book can be
copyrighted, the data cannot. Hence why you see so many phone books now
days.
While the way the presented the standard is protected, putting out the
standards in your own way is not.

GeekBoy wrote:
> [..]
> While the way the presented the standard is protected, putting out the
> standards in your own way is not.

I have hard time understanding that statment (English is not my mother
tongue). Could you perhaps clear it up or rephrase or maybe elaborate?
Thanks!

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

On 2007-07-10 21:24, Victor Bazarov wrote:
> GeekBoy wrote:
>> [..]
>> While the way the presented the standard is protected, putting out the
>> standards in your own way is not.
>
> I have hard time understanding that statment (English is not my mother
> tongue). Could you perhaps clear it up or rephrase or maybe elaborate?
> Thanks!

What he means is that while the standard (the text and formatting of it)
is copyrighted, the actual data in it can not be copyrighted (just the
representation), so it's legal to express the same data in another way
and distribute that.


Off topic copyright trivia:

Regarding the phone-book, I don't know about the US but in EU, the
collection of phone-numbers is protected by copyright while the
individual numbers are not protected. The same thing applies for things
like photo-books, while each photo is protected the book as such can not
be considered to be a work worthy of copyright protection, but since it
requires some effort to create it, it is also protected (in addition to
the protection for the individual photos).

--
Erik Wikström

"Victor Bazarov" <> writes:

> GeekBoy wrote:
>> [..]
>> While the way the presented the standard is protected, putting out the
>> standards in your own way is not.
>
> I have hard time understanding that statment (English is not my mother
> tongue). Could you perhaps clear it up or rephrase or maybe elaborate?

The text of the standard describes ideas and concepts. That text is copy-
righted, but the ideas and concepts that it describes are not - you can
write your own text to describe them without being concerned about the
copyright on the standard's description of them.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Victor Bazarov wrote:

> GeekBoy wrote:
>> [..]
>> While the way the presented the standard is protected, putting out the
>> standards in your own way is not.
>
> I have hard time understanding that statment (English is not my mother
> tongue). Could you perhaps clear it up or rephrase or maybe elaborate?
> Thanks!

It's not exactly clear, but I understood him to mean that under (US?)
copyright, protection applies to a particular expression and not (directly)
to the thought expressed therein. E.g., the quick-sort algorithm cannot be
copyrighted; although (a) any particular implementation can and (b) it may
be possible to obtain IP for an algorithm by other means, for instance,
patents.



Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

Erik Wikström wrote:
> On 2007-07-10 21:24, Victor Bazarov wrote:
>> GeekBoy wrote:
>>> [..]
>>> While the way the presented the standard is protected, putting out
>>> the standards in your own way is not.
>>
>> I have hard time understanding that statment (English is not my
>> mother tongue). Could you perhaps clear it up or rephrase or maybe
>> elaborate? Thanks!
>
> What he means is that while the standard (the text and formatting of
> it) is copyrighted, the actual data in it can not be copyrighted
> (just the representation), so it's legal to express the same data in
> another way and distribute that.

Aha... So, if I say that "applying operator* to a pointer that has
an invalid value causes things to happen to which no requirements can
be established", I'd be expressing the same idea as some standard
saying "dereferencing an invalid pointer has undefined behavior", but
it's OK since I don't quote the Standard itself, right?

I am guessing that there were some words missing in the sentence.
Ought to be

"While the way the SMTH presented BY the standard is protected,
putting out standard's SMTH in our own way is not".

Sounds about right?

> [..]

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

"Kai-Uwe Bux" <> wrote in message
news:f70pio$dqj$...
> Victor Bazarov wrote:
>
>> GeekBoy wrote:
>>> [..]
>>> While the way the presented the standard is protected, putting out the
>>> standards in your own way is not.
>>
>> I have hard time understanding that statment (English is not my mother
>> tongue). Could you perhaps clear it up or rephrase or maybe elaborate?
>> Thanks!
>
> It's not exactly clear, but I understood him to mean that under (US?)
> copyright, protection applies to a particular expression and not
> (directly)
> to the thought expressed therein. E.g., the quick-sort algorithm cannot be
> copyrighted; although (a) any particular implementation can and (b) it may
> be possible to obtain IP for an algorithm by other means, for instance,
> patents.
>


Here is an example. Suppose I make a movie about zombies and I am the first
person to do it.(A popular theme).

The idea of zombies in a movie cannot be copyrighted, but the way I tell the
story in the movie is.
So that means other can come along and make their own zombie movie as long
it is different.

However, under crazy US laws, some algorithms can be patiented. So if
someone came up with the bubble sort algorithm just the other day and
patented it, you could not use it commericaly for 10 years.







>
>
> Best
>
> Kai-Uwe Bux