Original authors and licensing of cdecl / c++decl

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by richard.wm.jones@gmail.com, Mar 13, 2007.

  1. Guest

    I'm trying to track down the original authors of cdecl.

    cdecl was dropped from Fedora Core a few years ago because of
    licensing concerns. The original postings to comp.sources.unix (vols
    6 & 14 in 1986 and 1988 respectively) have no licensing information.
    In order to get cdecl back in we would need a definitive statement
    from key original authors that the code can be distributed under a
    free license (eg. GPL or BSD-style licenses, or even public domain).

    I already wrote privately to Tony Hansen who was involved early on.
    Chris Torek posts here, but I can't send him email. Graham Ross,
    according to my researches, last worked at Thinkshare, but email to
    his last known address there bounces. Are there other people who
    contributed major parts, and where do they work now?

    Rich.
     
    , Mar 13, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Chris Torek Guest

    In article <>
    <> wrote:
    >I'm trying to track down the original authors of cdecl.
    >
    >cdecl was dropped from Fedora Core a few years ago because of
    >licensing concerns. The original postings to comp.sources.unix (vols
    >6 & 14 in 1986 and 1988 respectively) have no licensing information.
    >In order to get cdecl back in we would need a definitive statement
    >from key original authors that the code can be distributed under a
    >free license (eg. GPL or BSD-style licenses, or even public domain).
    >
    >I already wrote privately to Tony Hansen who was involved early on.
    >Chris Torek posts here, but I can't send him email. ...


    (Well, you can if you manage to find my work email address, but
    I do not advertise that one. :) )

    If I ever did any work on cdecl (which is possible), it was
    relatively minor.

    It might be nice to produce a new version of cdecl "from scratch"
    (but I am not volunteering :) ). Perhaps this could be one of
    those comp.lang.c projects that people try to start now and again.
    --
    In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
    Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
    email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
    Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
     
    Chris Torek, Mar 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Chris Torek <> writes:
    [...]
    > It might be nice to produce a new version of cdecl "from scratch"
    > (but I am not volunteering :) ). Perhaps this could be one of
    > those comp.lang.c projects that people try to start now and again.


    If somebody does this, I have a request: don't make "ptr" and
    "pointer" reserved in declarations. I've run into this a number of
    times, for example:

    % cdecl
    Type `help' or `?' for help
    cdecl> explain int *ptr
    syntax error
    cdecl> explain int *pntr
    declare pntr as pointer to int
    cdecl>

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Mar 14, 2007
    #3
  4. Guest

    On 14 Mar, 08:10, Chris Torek <> wrote:
    > In article <>
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >I'm trying to track down the original authors of cdecl.

    >
    > >cdecl was dropped from Fedora Core a few years ago because of
    > >licensing concerns. The original postings to comp.sources.unix (vols
    > >6 & 14 in 1986 and 1988 respectively) have no licensing information.
    > >In order to get cdecl back in we would need a definitive statement
    > >from key original authors that the code can be distributed under a
    > >free license (eg. GPL or BSD-style licenses, or even public domain).

    >
    > >I already wrote privately to Tony Hansen who was involved early on.
    > >Chris Torek posts here, but I can't send him email. ...

    >
    > (Well, you can if you manage to find my work email address, but
    > I do not advertise that one. :) )


    Thanks for replying Chris. I was emailing your "web"
    address, but with no luck.

    > If I ever did any work on cdecl (which is possible), it was
    > relatively minor.


    Your name is on the first upload (1986), but it looks like you were
    uploading it on behalf of the missing Graham Ross.

    > It might be nice to produce a new version of cdecl "from scratch"
    > (but I am not volunteering :) ). Perhaps this could be one of
    > those comp.lang.c projects that people try to start now and again.


    I would prefer to avoid having to reimplement this. A version
    exists and it could be "freed" with the say-so from two or three
    people. It's a shame that (C) law forces me to do this with
    ancient code which is all but abandoned, but that's a discussion
    for another place.

    Rich.
     
    , Mar 14, 2007
    #4
  5. Tweedale Guest

    On 14 Mar 2007 at 9:36, wrote:
    > I would prefer to avoid having to reimplement this. A version
    > exists and it could be "freed" with the say-so from two or three
    > people. It's a shame that (C) law forces me to do this with
    > ancient code which is all but abandoned, but that's a discussion
    > for another place.


    I'm confused. Debian has a version of cdecl that seems to be under the
    GPL and currently maintained:

    From
    <http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/c/cdecl/cdecl_2.5-8/cdecl.copyright>:
    > This package was debianized by Fredrik Hallenberg <> on
    > Wed, 7 Jul 1999 21:39:17 +0200.
    >
    > It was downloaded from ftp://ftp.cc.gatech.edu/pub/linux/devel/lang/c
    >
    > Upstream Author: David R. Conrad <>
    >
    > Copyright:
    >
    > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
    > under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
    > Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any
    > later version.

    <snip>

    Is this copyright information incorrect? If so, you should file a bug
    report against the Debian package. If not, what's wrong with the version
    of cdecl in Debian?

    --
    email: echo | tr a-gh-pq-z t-za-ij-s
     
    Tweedale, Mar 14, 2007
    #5
  6. Guest

    On 14 Mar, 10:53, Tweedale <> wrote:
    > I'm confused. Debian has a version of cdecl that seems to be under the
    > GPL and currently maintained:

    [...]
    >
    > Is this copyright information incorrect? If so, you should file a bug
    > report against the Debian package. If not, what's wrong with the version
    > of cdecl in Debian?


    I've written to the maintainer of the Debian package to see if he can
    clarify. At the moment there's no evidence that cdecl was relicensed
    under GPL, but thanks for pointing this one out.

    Rich.
     
    , Mar 14, 2007
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. A man

    pure virtual fxn decl

    A man, Sep 22, 2003, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    374
    jeffc
    Sep 22, 2003
  2. Dan W.

    template static member decl

    Dan W., Apr 29, 2005, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,790
    Dan W.
    Apr 29, 2005
  3. Tor Rustad

    cdecl test cases

    Tor Rustad, Mar 21, 2005, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    765
    Kevin D. Quitt
    Mar 28, 2005
  4. MaciekL

    [cdecl] and const keyword

    MaciekL, Feb 9, 2011, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    308
    MaciekL
    Feb 9, 2011
  5. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    462
    John B. Matthews
    Sep 16, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page