Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

freetds - Re: Sybase TDS Specification

freetds AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: FreeTDS Development Group

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Greg Beeley <gbeeley AT ix.netcom.com>
  • To: TDS Development Group <freetds AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Sybase TDS Specification
  • Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 10:35:19 -0400


Hi everyone,

> So, I am calling for someone from Sybase to explain themselves - was this
> some underhanded trick to trap the project proponents into a non-disclosure
> and non-source agreement and effectively kill the project ?
>
> These days it is almost silly to even include such clauses in something - I
> could get a hotmail account, download that spec from a public library
> somewhere, and no one could ever tie that download back to me or the
> freetds project, and that would effectively bypass the agreement entirely.

> On the upside the spec is accessible directly from
> [url] without agreeing to the EULA. I would encourage anyone who is
> concerned about becoming 'tainted' to use the direct link and bypass
> the EULA. I myself have downloaded it (using the direct link), but have
> not viewed the contents until I am certain whether or not I am still
> bound by the conditions of the EULA. Is there a lawyer in the house?

I don't know about anyone else on the list here, but I'm a little
uncomfortable with these types of assertions. In my view, Sybase has been
very generous in its contributions to the Linux community and such, even
though there are caveats here and there. If Sybase is really trying
to pull a trick, obviously it didn't work, but I sincerely doubt that's
what they're up to. Sybase is a big organization, and the legal department
probably wasn't fully aware of the goals of the engineering department in
releasing the TDS spec. Communications get all tangled up in larger
organizations pretty easily.

If we go asserting that 'click-n-sign' EULAs on the Internet might be invalid,
where does that leave things like the GPL and LGPL? I sincerely doubt
that questioning the validity or enforceability of click-n-sign or shrink-
wrap EULAs is the route to go here. If Sybase really wants to find a way
for FreeTDS to benefit from the official spec, let them do it, and I think
that would be great. But if that's not what can happen, FreeTDS already
has quite a project going, and there's no reason I see why it can't
continue :)

I guess my feeling is that if Sybase really wants to help, and sorta goofed
it up a little bit, and we flame them, they probably aren't going to be
very motivated to continue to help, and FreeTDS loses. On the other hand,
if they don't want to help, and the assertions of 'trickery' have merit,
and we flame them, it still doesn't change anything. So, my thought is
to treat Sybase professionally and with respect, and let them decide how
to handle the NDA issue. The ball is in their court now.

Am I way off on this or does this make a little sense?

Greg.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg.Beeley AT LightSys.org LightSys - Redeeming Technology...
http://www.LightSys.org For God's Kingdom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page