Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #16227 > unrolled thread

Reasonably priced C11 standard?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-25 12:53 -0800
    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-25 12:54 -0800
    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-01-26 23:53 +0100
    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? paolo <pc8875@nospam.mail.com.br> - 2012-02-02 20:03 +0000
      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-02 15:22 -0500
        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-03 11:35 +0100
          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-03 08:24 -0500
          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-03 12:39 -0800
          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 11:14 +0100
            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 06:16 -0500
              Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 12:13 +0000
                Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 10:06 -0500
                  Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 15:51 +0000
                    Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 11:05 -0500
                      Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 16:08 +0000
                        Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 11:30 -0500
                          Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 18:18 +0100
                            Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 13:02 -0500
                          Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 18:20 +0000
                            Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-02-06 19:38 +0000
                              Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 21:41 +0000
                                Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-02-06 21:56 +0000
                                  Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-06 22:07 +0000
                                  Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 22:09 +0000
                                    Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-02-06 22:24 +0000
                                Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-06 22:00 +0000
                                  Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-12 23:46 +0200
                                Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 19:02 -0500
                                  Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-07 11:14 +0000
                      Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-06 12:17 -0600
                        Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-06 12:52 -0800
                Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 03:35 -0800
              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 13:22 +0100
                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 08:18 -0500
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 15:20 +0100
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 10:50 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 16:02 +0000
                        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-02-06 19:56 -0800
                          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-06 20:38 -0800
                            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-06 21:44 -0800
                              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-07 14:22 -0800
                                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-07 16:33 -0800
                                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-07 19:35 -0800
                                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-08 00:27 -0500
                                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-08 10:01 -0800
                                        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-08 14:43 -0500
                            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2012-02-07 08:48 -0600
                          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-06 21:32 -0800
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 11:16 -0500
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 14:35 +0000
              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-06 15:28 +0100
                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 10:56 -0500
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-02-06 18:29 +0000
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 14:12 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-02-08 18:06 +0100
                        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-08 15:15 -0500
                          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-09 09:23 +1300
                            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 04:58 -0800
                              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 12:19 -0500
                                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-13 12:47 -0800
                              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-13 22:01 +0000
                          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-08 15:04 -0800
                            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-09 06:46 -0500
                            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 04:59 -0800
                              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-13 12:50 -0800
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-06 11:51 -0800
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 19:19 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-07 00:35 +0000
                        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 20:31 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-02-07 09:19 +0100
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 04:08 -0800
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 07:16 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-13 17:27 +0100
                        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 12:25 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-13 23:52 +0000
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-13 09:42 -0800
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-13 23:33 +0100
            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 03:32 -0800
        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-04 13:36 +0000
    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> - 2012-02-02 16:27 -0500
      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-02-03 01:48 +0100
        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-03 11:45 -0500
          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-02-03 09:27 -0800
            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-03 15:58 -0500
          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-03 13:06 -0800
            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-04 15:52 -0500
              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-04 13:58 -0800
                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-02-05 11:37 +0000
                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-07 10:53 -0500
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-07 14:25 -0800
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-02-07 23:07 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-07 21:07 -0800
              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-06 11:23 -0800

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#17250

On Mon, 2012-02-13, Nick Keighley wrote:
...
> The only copy of the C++ standard I've ever seen is one I paid for
> myself. It's worrying the number of old editions of Stroustrup you see
> in work places. The language changed significantly enough that these
> are actually wrong.

I recently found the Annotated C++ Reference Manual (1990) at work.
Flipped it open, and found a Post-it with a warning message on the
title page.  My memory is short; I wrote that Post-it myself last time
I saw the book lying around.

A previous coworker used a pre-ANSI edition K&R to prop up his
monitor. It felt wrong, but I guess I wouldn't want to see him use it
as a reference either.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16949

Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>                                                                    As far as my view, the
>> standard should be 10 or 15 dollars or actual printing or distribution
>> cost. All the work was already paid for by the committe participants and
>> sponsor companies and we as far as I know don't ever get anything back from
>> sale of standards etc. So where is all that money going? I think it's going
>> to the standards organization to pay for their junkets etc. That's why I
>> don't like it.
>
> International standards organizations organizational bureaucracies primarily
> in place to administer maintaining and distribution of the standards. I don't
> see them going on junkets specifically but they do play a significant role
> in making things workable.
>
> WG-14 which I am familiar with has effectively made almost all the
> material it has available on line. This material is essentially the same
> (or may infact be identical) to the released standards. In the case of
> C standard documents I suspect the total sales are in the hundreds or
> less. I would suspect the release process for the standard document
> probably would not be paid for by the collected fees.
>
>  But if I want to run conformance test suites on a new compiler then
> a test  suite company can specify that is is using a specific standards
> document as the basis of the test suites and the standards organization
> is responsible for selling the same document to the test suite vendor
> and I and all others who purchase the standards documents. The
> difference is the standards documents can all be traced back to a specific
> document. For users who need that professionally the fees are very
> low cost compared to finding out that a single but important sentence
> was different between two copies.

Surely a published checksum or PGP signature on the PDF file would serve
that purpose.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16980

Keith Thompson wrote:

> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:
> > For users who need that professionally the fees are very
> > low cost compared to finding out that a single but important sentence
> > was different between two copies.
>
> Surely a published checksum or PGP signature on the PDF file would serve
> that purpose.

There are lots of  technological solutions that would work.

ISO has standards for documents it provides. Making changes
in standard document form and getting them approved by ISO
member countries would make all the changes to C seem trivial.

w..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17213

On Feb 8, 11:04 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> writes:
> > Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >>                                                                    As far as my view, the
> >> standard should be 10 or 15 dollars or actual printing or distribution
> >> cost. All the work was already paid for by the committe participants and
> >> sponsor companies and we as far as I know don't ever get anything back from
> >> sale of standards etc. So where is all that money going? I think it's going
> >> to the standards organization to pay for their junkets etc. That's why I
> >> don't like it.
>
> > International standards organizations organizational bureaucracies primarily
> > in place to administer maintaining and distribution of the standards. I don't
> > see them going on junkets specifically but they do play a significant role
> > in making things workable.
>
> > WG-14 which I am familiar with has effectively made almost all the
> > material it has available on line. This material is essentially the same
> > (or may infact be identical) to the released standards. In the case of
> > C standard documents I suspect the total sales are in the hundreds or
> > less. I would suspect the release process for the standard document
> > probably would not be paid for by the collected fees.
>
> >  But if I want to run conformance test suites on a new compiler then
> > a test  suite company can specify that is is using a specific standards
> > document as the basis of the test suites and the standards organization
> > is responsible for selling the same document to the test suite vendor
> > and I and all others who purchase the standards documents. The
> > difference is the standards documents can all be traced back to a specific
> > document. For users who need that professionally the fees are very
> > low cost compared to finding out that a single but important sentence
> > was different between two copies.
>
> Surely a published checksum or PGP signature on the PDF file would serve
> that purpose.

that wouldn't tell you /what/ had changed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17242

Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> writes:
> On Feb 8, 11:04 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> writes:
[...]
>> >  But if I want to run conformance test suites on a new compiler then
>> > a test  suite company can specify that is is using a specific standards
>> > document as the basis of the test suites and the standards organization
>> > is responsible for selling the same document to the test suite vendor
>> > and I and all others who purchase the standards documents. The
>> > difference is the standards documents can all be traced back to a specific
>> > document. For users who need that professionally the fees are very
>> > low cost compared to finding out that a single but important sentence
>> > was different between two copies.
>>
>> Surely a published checksum or PGP signature on the PDF file would serve
>> that purpose.
>
> that wouldn't tell you /what/ had changed

No, it wouldn't.  If anything at all has changed, it's not the standard,
and in most cases that's all you need to know.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16772

Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:
> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>>            Yet something like an ISO or ANSI standard really should be
>> freely downloadable or available printed for actual cost, not as a profit.
>
> The current ISO or ANSI standards are sold for very much less than the
> actual costs. They are low volume documents whose development costs are
> subsidized by governments, trade organizations, private companies and
> individuals.

Does the money paid for copies of the ISO C standard reimburse the
committee members for their time, or for any other actual expenses of
producing the standard?  My understanding is that the answer is no.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16786

Keith Thompson wrote:

> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:
> > Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> >>            Yet something like an ISO or ANSI standard really should be
> >> freely downloadable or available printed for actual cost, not as a profit.
> >
> > The current ISO or ANSI standards are sold for very much less than the
> > actual costs. They are low volume documents whose development costs are
> > subsidized by governments, trade organizations, private companies and
> > individuals.
>
> Does the money paid for copies of the ISO C standard reimburse the
> committee members for their time, or for any other actual expenses of
> producing the standard?  My understanding is that the answer is no.
>

My understanding is generated revenue goes to administration of
standards organization. As a committee member my expenses have been
paid for by my company and as far as I know expenses of most members
are either sponsored by their companies, individual means or in some cases
paid direct expenses by national organizations (typically a commercial
organization not government)

The time commitment is significant close to a month per year is required
by most committee members.

w..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16787

On 2012-02-07, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> My understanding is generated revenue goes to administration of
> standards organization.

In that case, copy the damn thing and give $200 to people doing something
useful in computing, like, I dunno, maintaining Debian.

Administering ISO, what a load of crap. The Scheme language has a nice
standard, without all that overhead.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16788

Kaz Kylheku wrote:

> On 2012-02-07, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> > My understanding is generated revenue goes to administration of
> > standards organization.
>
> In that case, copy the damn thing and give $200 to people doing something
> useful in computing, like, I dunno, maintaining Debian.
>
> Administering ISO, what a load of crap. The Scheme language has a nice
> standard, without all that overhead.

Then have C without a recognized standard, and we thought there
was chaos now.

Seriously the content is free to anyone who wants to casually read what
is in it and available for a fee for anyone with a professional need. Against
the development cost of a compiler the ISO fees are small and benefits of
availability of standardized test suites (now there are some real fees) and
compatible libraries well worth the cost.

w..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16826

Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Keith Thompson wrote:
> 
> > Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:
> > > Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> > >>            Yet something like an ISO or ANSI standard really should be
> > >> freely downloadable or available printed for actual cost, not as a profit.
> > >
> > > The current ISO or ANSI standards are sold for very much less than the
> > > actual costs. They are low volume documents whose development costs are
> > > subsidized by governments, trade organizations, private companies and
> > > individuals.
> >
> > Does the money paid for copies of the ISO C standard reimburse the
> > committee members for their time, or for any other actual expenses of
> > producing the standard?  My understanding is that the answer is no.
> >
> 
> My understanding is generated revenue goes to administration of
> standards organization. As a committee member my expenses have been
> paid for by my company and as far as I know expenses of most members
> are either sponsored by their companies, individual means or in some cases
> paid direct expenses by national organizations (typically a commercial
> organization not government)
> 
> The time commitment is significant close to a month per year is required
> by most committee members.

This is my experience as well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17203

On Feb 6, 3:56 pm, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> Fritz Wuehler wrote:

> >            Yet something like an ISO or ANSI standard really should be
> > freely downloadable or available printed for actual cost, not as a profit.

I think standards should be sold for cost of distribution. In a sense
not making them freely available makes them less useful.

> The current ISO or ANSI standards are sold for very much less than the
> actual costs. They are low volume documents whose development costs are
> subsidized by governments, trade organizations, private companies and
> individuals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17204

On 02/13/2012 07:08 AM, Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Feb 6, 3:56�pm, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> 
>>> � � � � � �Yet something like an ISO or ANSI standard really should be
>>> freely downloadable or available printed for actual cost, not as a profit.
> 
> I think standards should be sold for cost of distribution. In a sense
> not making them freely available makes them less useful.

If the sales of standard should only cover the costs of distribution,
who do you think should pay the costs of developing the standards in the
first place? I think that having the users of the standards pay those
costs is quite reasonable. Keep in mind the Golden Rule - he who
provides the gold, makes the rules.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17224

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:

> On 02/13/2012 07:08 AM, Nick Keighley wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 3:56�pm, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> >> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> > 
> >>> � � � � � �Yet something like an ISO or ANSI standard really should be
> >>> freely downloadable or available printed for actual cost, not as a profit.
> > 
> > I think standards should be sold for cost of distribution. In a sense
> > not making them freely available makes them less useful.
> 
> If the sales of standard should only cover the costs of distribution,
> who do you think should pay the costs of developing the standards in the
> first place? I think that having the users of the standards pay those
> costs is quite reasonable. Keep in mind the Golden Rule - he who
> provides the gold, makes the rules.

No, you are missing a key point. The people making money from the standard
*are not* the same people who bear the costs of developing the standards!

As Walter and I have said, it is the member organizations who bear the costs
of creating standards. We do not receive any direct renumeration from the
costs associated with participating in standards committees and developing
the standards. The overwhelming portion of the costs of developing a
standard is with the committee members, not with the standards bodies. But
the standards bodies are the ones who sell the standard publications and
receive the payment. It would not be incorrect to say they are making money
off our backs by selling standards publications for more than *their* actual
costs. We have *already contributed* our time to developing the standard. We
don't charge the standards committee for our travel, loss of job time, etc.

That is why many of us feel the standards should be sold for actual costs to
the standards body. Anything over that is hard to justify and smacks of
theft.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17227

On 02/13/2012 11:27 AM, Fritz Wuehler wrote:
...
> No, you are missing a key point. The people making money from the standard
> *are not* the same people who bear the costs of developing the standards!
> 
> As Walter and I have said, it is the member organizations who bear the costs
> of creating standards. We do not receive any direct renumeration from the
> costs associated with participating in standards committees and developing
> the standards. The overwhelming portion of the costs of developing a
> standard is with the committee members, not with the standards bodies. But
> the standards bodies are the ones who sell the standard publications and
> receive the payment.

It's very nice of you to provide those services without remuneration
(and no, I'm not being sarcastic). However, do you have any evidence
that the money collected by the organizations which do sell the
standards exceeds the costs incurred by those organizations in
connection with those standards? I've never seen anyone come up with
hard figures relevant to that question. They could be making tons of
money off the standards; they could be losing tons, too. I don't have
enough information to determine which of those two cases apply - do you?

...
> That is why many of us feel the standards should be sold for actual costs to
> the standards body.

Do you have any hard evidence to support a belief that this is not
already the case? I'm referring to hard numbers for the actual costs and
the actual revenues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17263

On 2012-02-13, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 02/13/2012 07:08 AM, Nick Keighley wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 3:56�pm, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>>> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>> 
>>>> � � � � � �Yet something like an ISO or ANSI standard really should be
>>>> freely downloadable or available printed for actual cost, not as a profit.
>> 
>> I think standards should be sold for cost of distribution. In a sense
>> not making them freely available makes them less useful.
>
> If the sales of standard should only cover the costs of distribution,
> who do you think should pay the costs of developing the standards in the
> first place?

Those who make a hobby of screwing up the language should pay for the cost,
and be held liable for the damages.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17230

Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> writes:

> On Feb 6, 3:56 pm, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>
>> >            Yet something like an ISO or ANSI standard really should be
>> > freely downloadable or available printed for actual cost, not as a profit.
>
> I think standards should be sold for cost of distribution. In a sense
> not making them freely available makes them less useful.

It certainly does, but where should the ISO's budget come from?  They
need some staff to set up conferences, distribute publications, sysadmin
to run their web site, etc.  Open to ideas,

-- Patrick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17258

Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote:

> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Feb 6, 3:56pm, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> >> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> >
> >> >            Yet something like an ISO or ANSI standard really should be
> >> > freely downloadable or available printed for actual cost, not as a profit.
> >
> > I think standards should be sold for cost of distribution. In a sense
> > not making them freely available makes them less useful.
> 
> It certainly does, but where should the ISO's budget come from?

We also pay member dues to add insult to injury! In addition they get
government grants and and sponsorships from members and they sell
publications related to their own programs (not any specific standard).


>  They
> need some staff to set up conferences, distribute publications, sysadmin
> to run their web site, etc.  Open to ideas,

> 
> -- Patrick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17201

On Feb 6, 10:14 am, Noob <r...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> > James Kuyper wrote:


> >> He did specify that he was looking for legal copies.
>
> > Well that's a fine point. It will be a *copy* of a legal copy.
> > Will that work for you? Works for me! ;-)
>
> In France, it is legal to provide a copy of a work protected by copyright
> to anyone in one's "close circle" (as defined by case law) for personal use.
>
> Some of you (mostly anglophones) have been brain-washed by "big media"(*)
> and are waaay too docile when it comes to copyright.

well I get paid to produce software so I'm not entirely against legal
protection for intellectual property.

[cue free software rants]

> (*) It's funny (in a sad way) that "big media" are the ACTUAL "thief"
> in this story, pilfering and ransacking the public domain since $DEITY
> invented the talking mouse.

for instance?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16679

James Kuyper wrote:

> He did specify that he was looking for legal copies.

If it is exclusively for personal use and doesn't have a noticeable impact 
on the sale of the work of art, in some jurisdictions a copy downloaded from 
anywhere is as "legal" as any other copy.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16642

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:53:54 -0800, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
wrote:

>Years ago, I bought a PDF copy of the ISO C90 standard from ansi.org
>for $18.  I later bought a PDF copy of the C99 standard for either
>$18 or $30
>
>Now when I look on webstore.ansi.org, the C99 standard is still
>available for $30, but they want $285 for ISO/IEC 9899:2011.
>
>iso.org is charging CHF 238, which is about $255 US at current
>exchange rates.
>
>Apparently ANSI had a policy of selling the C99 standard at a
>reasonable price.  Why does that policy not apply to the C11
>standard?  Is any other organization selling (legal!) copies of
>C11 at a lower price?
>
>(The same thing seems to be happening with the ISO C++ standard.)

The price seems to change based on an algorithm that accounts for the
flow in the Héraðsvötn, the price of beef in Cochabamba, and the annual
rainfall total in Darwin.

I picked up a PDF copy of C99 from INCITS http://www.incits.org/ a
couple of years ago for only $30 and now they want $220 and only the
printed version is available there while, as you note, ANSI still offers
a $30 PDF.  Sheesh...

-- 
Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web