From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 17 Aug 93 02:47:24 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr
.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!ub!dsinc!gvls1!lonjers@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Jim Lon
jers)
Subject: Re: POSIX P1003.5
Message-ID: <1993Aug17.024724.14488@VFL.Paramax.COM>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <24alhg$3p5@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wr
ites:
>Regarding this issue, is the IEEE spec copyrighted, I mean the actual Ada
>code in the spec. If so, then what is the implication of this copyright.
>Can people freely copy just the Ada code? Can they modify it? 
>
>The whole business of copyrighting specs (just one small step removed from
>copyrighting the look and feel of interfaces) is worrisome. 

Because the entire book is copyrighted, the specs are copyrighted, also.

The IEEE does not want to get into anything as awful as the look and feel
fiasco, they are just intensly cautious.  They want to do the right thing.

I got a message from the IEEE today indicating that there is no longer a
problem with public distribution of package specs, but I have not seen the
revised copyright notices.

As soon as I can, I will be posting further notes on the subject.

Of course, the only thing covered by the IEEE copyright are the package
specs.  Any implementation of the POSIX Ada bindings would be covered by
the creator's copyright.  I assume the GNAT implementation would be covered
by copyleft, right?