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

 

[Stephen L.]

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

I think SCO is planning a claim to it soon...



(couldn't resist)

-
Stephen

 

[Lew Pitcher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Maboroshi wrote:
| Hi I was just curious about something for future reference
|
| Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

"ANSI C" and "ISO C" are /standards/, not software.
The standards bodies (ISO, ANSI, etc.) "own" the standards, in that they are
the ones that sponsor the groups that write the standard. The groups are not
"exclusive"; if you express the right level of interest to the right person,
you too can be a part of the standards body.

The standard is not "Open Source" (there's no 'source' to 'open'), but
implementations of the standard can be.

| Thank You if you reply
|
|
|
|


- --
Lew Pitcher

Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | GPG public key available on request
Registered Linux User #112576 (http://counter.li.org/)
Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAx7XCagVFX4UWr64RAixUAJ4v6SvY2xWx7YG/yZoMalIQzkcLuACdHa06
SebuM5jUN/+QwrntsK5OZ54=
=c27C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Petec]

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

ANSI C is owned by just that - ANSI. To get a copy you must pay them a fee.

- Pete

 

[Jack Klein]

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

The C language standard is copyrighted by International standards
organizations like ISO and IEC, and the national standards bodies of
member nations such as ANSI (US), BSO (Great Britain), and so on.

The language standard itself is not program source code, so the term
"open source" does not apply.

But no one "owns" the C language itself, anymore than some could own
the English language or algebra.

Individual implementations (compilers and related tools) are a
different story. Some, like GCC, are open source. Others, such a
Microsoft or CodeWarrior, are proprietary products of the companies
that produce and sell them.

 

[Barry Schwarz]

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

ANSI C is one of the generic names for the C language as defined by
one of the existing standards. ANSI is probably a trademark of the
American National Standards Institute but they don't own the language.
They do publish (sell) the standard that defines the language and that
document is copyrighted. But other standards organizations sell
similar documents which they copyright.

Open source and freeware are terms that apply to software products,
not the language itself. Some C compilers are open source, others are
freeware, others are shareware, and others are commercial. The same
is true for the link and run time "libraries" that support these
compilers. And for any "environment" (such as editors and debugging
tools) that may come with the compilers.


<<Remove the del for email>>

 

[Martin Dickopp]

Maboroshi wrote:
| Hi I was just curious about something for future reference
|
| Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

"ANSI C" and "ISO C" are /standards/, not software.
The standards bodies (ISO, ANSI, etc.) "own" the standards, in that
they are the ones that sponsor the groups that write the standard. The
groups are not "exclusive"; if you express the right level of interest
to the right person, you too can be a part of the standards body.

This may or may not be true, depending on the rules of your national
standards organization.

The standard is not "Open Source" (there's no 'source' to 'open'), but
implementations of the standard can be.

<OT>
Every work has a source, which is sometimes identical to the work
itself, sometimes not. Since the printed version of the C standard
was likely not created by manually painting ink on paper, and the
PDF version was likely not created by manually typing the content
of the PDF file, it appears that the latter applies to the standard.
</OT>

Martin

 

[Christian Bau]

I think SCO is planning a claim to it soon...

You mean because they own C++, and C++ is derived from C so they must
own that as well?

 

[Dan Pop]

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

ANSI C is not a piece of software, so the concepts of "open source" and
"freeware" make no sense in context.

The ANSI C specification (aka C89) is hard to obtain these days (IIRC,
BSI might be still selling it). The current version of the ISO
C specification is available in both electronic and printed form,
at cost, and it is copyrighted work. Its implementations, however,
can be distributed as open source/freeware.

Dan

 

[James Kanze]

|> > Maboroshi wrote:
|> > | Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

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

|> > "ANSI C" and "ISO C" are /standards/, not software. The standards
|> > bodies (ISO, ANSI, etc.) "own" the standards, in that they are the
|> > ones that sponsor the groups that write the standard. The groups
|> > are not "exclusive"; if you express the right level of interest to
|> > the right person, you too can be a part of the standards body.

|> This may or may not be true, depending on the rules of your national
|> standards organization.

ANSI is very open. Anyone willing to pay the fees can join, even if
they are not an American citizen and don't live in America. So it is in
fact true that anyone willing to pay ANSI fees can participate.

Participating through your national standards organization can be more
or less difficult. In the case of most countries, the national
standards orgainization doesn't even participate in the working groups
for C.

|> > The standard is not "Open Source" (there's no 'source' to 'open'),
|> > but implementations of the standard can be.

The standard is a copyrighted work. And it isn't distributed under any
"Open Source" license; you're not allowed to copy it.

 

[Malcolm]

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

Anyone can write a compiler and describe it as a "C" compiler. You can get
both free and commercial compilers for a wide variety of platforms, and of
varying quality.

ANSI publish a standard for C, and most compilers want to be ANSI compliant.
You don't need permission from ANSI to write a conforming compiler, and
there is no central testing body. I'm not quite sure what the law would say
about non-conforming compilers described as "ANSI", and whether ANSI would
have the right to take legal action.

So basically no-one owns C, but ANSI is the watchdog.

 

[Keith Thompson]

ANSI C is not a piece of software, so the concepts of "open source" and
"freeware" make no sense in context.

The ANSI C specification (aka C89) is hard to obtain these days (IIRC,
BSI might be still selling it). The current version of the ISO
C specification is available in both electronic and printed form,
at cost, and it is copyrighted work. Its implementations, however,
can be distributed as open source/freeware.

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 think
you meant "at a cost".

 

[Mike Wahler]

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

I own it. Royalties! OK everybody, pay up.

-Mike

 

[Dan Pop]

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.

Can I have a reference for that? Does it mean that
http://www.cruisesatcost.com/ is a non-profit organisation?

Dan

 

[Richard Tobin]

A smaller quibble: it implies that it's sold at the wholesale cost to
the retailer.

Can I have a reference for that?

OED: "at cost: at the initial cost" with example "We sell..durable
clothing very close to cost"

Does it mean that
http://www.cruisesatcost.com/ is a non-profit organisation?

No, it means that they're exaggerating.

Or maybe "at cost" means something else in America.

-- Richard

 

[Fao, Sean]

Can I have a reference for that? Does it mean that
http://www.cruisesatcost.com/ is a non-profit organisation?

In all honesty, I think they made the same /mistake/ as you. I do want
to point out that it's *probably* an American custom. We have a lot of
people that are picky on wording. Probably due somewhat in part to the
excessively large number of lawyers that like to play with words to
stretch the truth.

 

[Rob Morris]

I own it. Royalties! OK everybody, pay up.

-Mike

This is a very mature group. I was surprised not to see something like
this sooner. Or, even:
I pwn C!!!!1! I pwn j00!!1!!! j00 = teh suxor!!!!111One!1

 

[Richard Bos]

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.

Richard

 

[Mark McIntyre]

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.[/QUOTE]

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

 

[Allin Cottrell]

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...[/QUOTE]

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.

Allin Cottrell.