Up-to-dateness of the c.l.c. FAQ

[Sidney Cadot]

Hi all,

Isn't it time for an update of the wording in some sections of the
c.l.c. FAQ ? The last update has been in 1999, I think, and quite a bit
that has happened since then should probably be addressed (introduction
of C99 final, for one thing).

Also, it would be a good idea to synchronise the text version with the
freely available HTML and printable versions.

As to the FAQ text, I see it is copyrighted by Steve Summit, and there's
a book version available as well. I appreciate the efforts he
undoubtedly has put into this, but shouldn't this kind of thing properly
belong in the public domain?

Best regards,

Sidney

 

[Ben Pfaff]

As to the FAQ text, I see it is copyrighted by Steve Summit, and
there's a book version available as well. I appreciate the efforts he
undoubtedly has put into this, but shouldn't this kind of thing
properly belong in the public domain?

Why? He wrote it, why should he give up copyright on it?

 

[Sidney Cadot]

Why? He wrote it, why should he give up copyright on it?

Hold your horses.... I never said he should, did I? I would perhaps hope
he would /consider/ it, with all pros and cons.

I do think it would be more convenient if the FAQ were in the public
domain. For one reason or another, it doesn't seem to be very actively
maintained; for another thing, if something would happen to Steve that
would make it impossible for him to do maintenance, nobody could use his
work as an extensive basis for a version that would be maintained
because of the copyright (I think). That would surely be undesirable?

Best regards, Sidney

 

[Ben Pfaff]

Why? He wrote it, why should he give up copyright on it?

Hold your horses.... I never said he should, did I? I would perhaps
hope he would /consider/ it, with all pros and cons.

I do think it would be more convenient if the FAQ were in the public
domain. [...]

Oh, definitely. But it's a little harsh on Steve to tell him
that his work "properly belong in the public domain." Based
on my own efforts to write up just a few FAQ answers, I'm sure
he's put an enormous amount of time and effort into the C FAQ.

 

[Sidney Cadot]

Ben Pfaff wrote:

As to the FAQ text, I see it is copyrighted by Steve Summit, and
there's a book version available as well. I appreciate the efforts he
undoubtedly has put into this, but shouldn't this kind of thing
properly belong in the public domain?

Why? He wrote it, why should he give up copyright on it?

Hold your horses.... I never said he should, did I? I would perhaps
hope he would /consider/ it, with all pros and cons.

I do think it would be more convenient if the FAQ were in the public
domain. [...]

Oh, definitely. But it's a little harsh on Steve to tell him
that his work "properly belong in the public domain." Based
on my own efforts to write up just a few FAQ answers, I'm sure
he's put an enormous amount of time and effort into the C FAQ.

Well, it wasn't intended as such (it was stated in quite general terms),
and I too appreciate the amount of work that must have gone into it.

However, all of this appreciation does not negate the two drawbacks
stated in my previous post. It /is/ a bit weird that AD 2004 the c.l.c.
FAQ consistently talks about the 'forthcoming C9X standard' in the
future tense, don't you think, and there is a real risk of Steve not
being available for maintenance indefinitely.

I hope I'm not tredding on a sensitive area here, I'm just trying to
approach this from a practical angle. In general, if one is to redirect
people to the FAQ in a harsh-but-just manner, the FAQ had better been
spot-on accurate, and in touch with current events. Just my five cents.

Best regards, Sidney

 

[Papadopoulos Giannis]

Hi all,

Isn't it time for an update of the wording in some sections of the
c.l.c. FAQ ? The last update has been in 1999, I think, and quite a bit
that has happened since then should probably be addressed (introduction
of C99 final, for one thing).

Also, it would be a good idea to synchronise the text version with the
freely available HTML and printable versions.

As to the FAQ text, I see it is copyrighted by Steve Summit, and there's
a book version available as well. I appreciate the efforts he
undoubtedly has put into this, but shouldn't this kind of thing properly
belong in the public domain?

Best regards,

Sidney

How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

--
#include <stdio.h>
#define p(s) printf(#s" endian")
int main(void){int v=1;*(char*)&v?p(Little)(Big);return 0;}

Giannis Papadopoulos
http://dop.users.uth.gr/
University of Thessaly
Computer & Communications Engineering dept.

 

[Richard Bos]

Why? He wrote it, why should he give up copyright on it?

Well, no... but I have wondered before whether it were not better named
"C language FAQ", and whether there should not be a c.l.c FAQ that
actually is about the newsgroup, not about the language. Then again, I'm
not about to write, let alone maintain, this newsgroup FAQ, so I
shouldn't talk, really.

Richard

 

[Dan Pop]

How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

Go on.

Dan

 

[Dan Pop]

I hope I'm not tredding on a sensitive area here, I'm just trying to
approach this from a practical angle.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then discuss the issue with Steve, because he is the only one who can do
something about it.

Dan

 

[Dan Pop]

Well, no... but I have wondered before whether it were not better named
"C language FAQ", and whether there should not be a c.l.c FAQ that
actually is about the newsgroup, not about the language.

That's the point: the FAQ is really dealing with questions that are (or
were) frequently asked in the newsgroup, whether they are about the
language or not. Sections 18 and 19 have precious little to do with
the language.

Dan

 

[Ben Pfaff]

How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

There is already one:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
I don't see what the GNU GPL has to do with C, though.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

There is already one:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
I don't see what the GNU GPL has to do with C, though.

Ah, disingenuity rules OK!

So let's spell it out.

The proposal appears to be that we could start a new comp.lang.c FAQ under
the terms of the GPL. This would enable anyone whatsoever, without regard
to their knowledge of or understanding of the C language, to make a copy of
the newly-developed FAQ, edit it to their heart's content (e.g. they could
take out all that rot about undefined behaviour, or shoehorn a bunch of
void main examples into the middle somewhere), and publish it on their Web
site.

Is that what we want?

 

[Martin Dickopp]

The proposal appears to be that we could start a new comp.lang.c FAQ
under the terms of the GPL. This would enable anyone whatsoever,
without regard to their knowledge of or understanding of the C
language, to make a copy of the newly-developed FAQ, edit it to their
heart's content (e.g. they could take out all that rot about undefined
behaviour, or shoehorn a bunch of void main examples into the middle
somewhere), and publish it on their Web site.

Actually, nobody would be allowed to do that, unless the modified
version carried "prominent notices" that (and when) it has been
modified.

Martin

 

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Ah, disingenuity rules OK!

So let's spell it out.

The proposal appears to be that we could start a new comp.lang.c FAQ under
the terms of the GPL. This would enable anyone whatsoever, without regard
to their knowledge of or understanding of the C language, to make a copy of
the newly-developed FAQ, edit it to their heart's content (e.g. they could
take out all that rot about undefined behaviour, or shoehorn a bunch of
void main examples into the middle somewhere), and publish it on their Web
site.

Is that what we want?

Heavens no!

Imagine someone troll recommending using malloc without a cast
even though experts such as P. J. Plauger and Bjarne Stroustrup
have recommending that it should always be cast.

 

[Tak-Shing Chan]

There is already one:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
I don't see what the GNU GPL has to do with C, though.

I think he means ``GPL'ed''.

Tak-Shing

 

[Default User]

That's the point: the FAQ is really dealing with questions that are (or
were) frequently asked in the newsgroup, whether they are about the
language or not. Sections 18 and 19 have precious little to do with
the language.

However, it does not address questions that are normally part of a
newsgroup FAQ, such as "what things are on-topic here?"

For instance, the comp.lang.c++ FAQ list doesn't get to language
questions until section 6.




Brian Rodenborn

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Actually, nobody would be allowed to do that, unless the modified
version carried "prominent notices" that (and when) it has been
modified.

Fair comment. So - do people think this is a good idea, or not?

 

[Sidney Cadot]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then discuss the issue with Steve, because he is the only one who can do
something about it.

No. I'm sure that some dedicated work by, say, 10 people, could produce
a high-quality FAQ from scratch, if need be, within a couple of months,
unencumbered by a copyright binding it to one person.

Your reply seems to indicate that you are either uncomfortable with this
discussion, or that you do not see the purpose of it. Is that true? If
so, why is that?

Best regards,

Sidney

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Heavens no!

Imagine someone troll recommending using malloc without a cast
even though experts such as P. J. Plauger and Bjarne Stroustrup
have recommending that it should always be cast.

Always? I don't recall either of them saying that. Please provide message
IDs to support this claim. Thank you.

/My/ understanding of Mr Plauger's claim is this: P J Plauger has a good
reason for wanting to have his source compile in C++ as well as C, and of
course the cast is necessary in C++. But the need to be able to compile one
set of sources in two very different languages is sufficiently esoteric
that it need not be of concern to everyday programmers.

As for Mr Stroustrup, well, frankly I think he'd rather everyone stopped
using C altogether; so, whether he said what you claim he said or whether
he didn't, I'm not overly inclined to lend a vast amount of weight to his
opinions on malloc-casting (despite the significant level of respect I have
for his contributions to C and C++).

 

[Sidney Cadot]

How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

Much better to change things by evolution rather than by revolution, I'd
say. Even if this could be organised (I think it would be difficult), it
would be a terrible waste of effort, considering the amount of work that
has gone into the current FAQ already.

Best regards, Sidney