FreeTDS Development Group

["Brian Bruns" <camber AT ais.org>]

I should have been a little more specific.  It is not the entirety of 
section 2.1 (which is the license grant), but the two items (i) and (ii) at 
the bottom of this section which are unacceptable. I have re-read the EULA 
and would feel comfortable signing if these two modifications were to be 
made.

Regards,

Brian

On 09/15/99, ""Brian Bruns" <camber AT ais.org>" wrote:
> Ok, I had no problem with the indemnity and non-redistribution clauses.  I
agree that Sybase needs the as-is clauses to cover itself legally.  The 
two
clauses I have a problem with are sections 2.1 and 8.1.

2.1 because it conflicts with the GPL/LGPL licenses and prohibits the 
addition of other similar protocols in the same library, which is overly 
prohibitive.

8.1 because source code is a form of disclosure. If there were verbage 
placed in there to specifically allow for source code, while restricting 
other means of disclosure, I'm sure this would be acceptable.

These are the two show-stoppers I saw in my first reading of the EULA. I'm
going to have to go back and re-read it to make sure that the removal of 
2.1 and the alteration of 8.1 is all that is necessary.

Anybody have any others?

Regards,

Brian

On 09/15/99, "Steve Olson <olson AT sybase.com>" wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> Our intent was to publish the TDS spec so that any developer could use it 
> to do something useful.  The legal verbiage was put there primarily to 
> cover our butts - we don't want to be liable if any software you've written 
> doesn't work!
> 
> I think everyone on this end meant to put the TDS spec out there so it 
> would be used without prohibitive restrictions.  If that's not the case, 
> then I'll recommend to our lawyers that we re-visit the download license 
> agreement so that it serves the intended purpose.
> 
> There was no 'trickery' intended.  I think we are seeing a case of our 
> legal department trying to do their job and protect Sybase; in doing so 
> perhaps created text that makes the use of the doc seem more restrictive 
> that it was intended to be.
> 
> Regards,
> Steve Olson
> Technical Director
> Sybase, Inc.
> 
> 
> Jon Pounder wrote:
> 
> > I totally disagree with your assertion - copyright law is implied. It
> > grants no one other than the author the right to do anything. 
> > Distribution,
> > and copying, fall into this category. If the work is published, then
> > obviously referencing it does not fall into this category.
> >
> > The GPL and LGPL remove a lot of these restrictions on copying and
> > distribution. The Sybase licence does quite the opposite, and goes so far
> > as to make referencing a published document un-permitted under certain
> > circumstances.
> >
> > I sure hope someone from Sybase steps in soon and says "this was not what
> > was intended at all, we goofed with the statement", since in essence what
> > it really says is "anyone who reads this can't work on the freetds project
> > any more."
> >
> > At 10:02 AM 9/15/99 -0700, you wrote:
> > >Andrew Pimlott <pimlott AT MATH.HARVARD.EDU> writes:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Greg Beeley wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > 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?
> > >>
> > >> It does not affect them.  If you reject the GPL, you wind up with 
> > >> rights
> > >> granted to you by copyright law, which would not permit you to 
> > >> distribute
> > >> copies at all.  In other words, the purpose of the GPL is to grant you
> > >> _more_ rights than you would otherwise have.
> > >
> > >Please do not speak nonsense in a public forum, unintentionally.  I
> > >also do not understand the nuances (it's not my field), but:
> > >
> > >Copyright grants the holder the right to place restrictions on use and
> > >distribution under contract law.  The copyright holder can choose to
> > >establish just about any reasonable terms s/he wishes; thus RMS's
> > >unusual conditions in the (L)GPL.  If copyright is *not* asserted, the
> > >work belongs to the public domain and no restrictions on use or
> > >distribution apply.
> > >
> > >"Copyright law" doesn't talk about rights or burdens on the user or
> > >distributor of someone else's copyrighted work; it says the copyright
> > >holder can place terms (under contract law) on such users or
> > >distributors.
> > >
> > >Or something very much like that.
> > >
> > >> Not a law-talkin-guy,
> > >> Andrew
> > >
> > >Please accept my apologies in advance if you intended to mislead.  ;^)
> > >--
> > >Steven Work
> > >Renaissance Labs
> > >steve AT renlabs.com
> > >360 647-1833
> > >
> > >---
> > >You are currently subscribed to freetds as: pounder AT inline.net
> > >To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> > $subst('Email.Unsub')
> > >
> > >
> >
> >         Jon Pounder,   Development Engineer
> >         Inline Internet Systems
> >         pounder AT inline.net Jon AT Pounder.com
> >
> >         Web Tools Engineered for Success
> >         http://www.inline.net
> >         http://www.ihtml.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to freetds as: olson AT sybase.com
> > To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')