Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

freetds - Re: Sybase TDS Specification

freetds AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: FreeTDS Development Group

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Brian Bruns" <camber AT ais.org>
  • To: freetds
  • Subject: Re: Sybase TDS Specification
  • Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:45:49


Ryan,

Points well taken. Here is my current (comprehensive?) list of license
problems which may or may not be an issue for FreeTDS.

1.2 TDS Product. Is the TDS Product in question limited to the library
or does it extend to programs which utilize the library? This
needs
clarification.
2.1.d binary/executable statement. what about source availability?
2.1.i This is a killer clause as it conflicts with LGPL
2.1.ii We are apparently already violating this one with TDS 7.0. Together
with
1.2 could prevent 'gateway' type projects.
2.2 Documenting the protocol. I'm willing to live with this one
personally, however others may have problems. If the documentation
is available under
a liberal enough license then there is no point in us recreating
it.
6.1 Termination of the EULA. We need to protect the work done to
FreeTDS in reference to the spec in case of termination by Sybase
of the EULA. Section 8.1 specifically protects knowledge
gained in advance of
accepting the EULA, so the areas in trouble are non-server based
authentification, cursors, bulk copy, and RPCs (server to server
comm)
Other areas of the spec are already implemented and would survive
termination.
8.1 Non disclosure. Exemptions needed for source code, and possibly
mailing list. For mailing list, a second non-open mailing list
could be created to discuss protocol issues.

Feel free to add to the list.

Brian

On 09/15/99, ""Ryan Russell" <Ryan.Russell AT sybase.com>" wrote:
> >Anybody have any others?
>
> I am speaking solely for myself. I do not speak for my employer.
> I am not a laywer. Ignore the man behind the curtain.
>
> >2.1 License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
> > Agreement, You are granted a non-exclusive, non-transferable,
> > royalty free license to:
> >
> > (a) use the TDS Specification solely for the development of TDS
> > Source Code;
>
> At one point in time, Sybase did an agreement with Network General
> to include TDS decodes in their Sniffer product. They're great, I use them
> all the time. This clause would seem to not allow that, barring separate
> agreeement. (Were I, say, working on enhancing tcpdump.)
>
> >(d) reproduce, sublicense and distribute your TDS Products
> > incorporating the TDS Source Code (in binary or executable form).
>
> I can only release binaries, no source? Did Sybase mean to
> say (in source or executable form) ?
>
> Here's the real problem, I think:
>
> >As a condition to exercising the rights granted above, You agree
> > that: (i) You will not market, distribute or otherwise make available
> > any product or mechanism (including TDS Source Code) which
> > would enable the TDS Protocol to be used in the development of,
> > or in conjunction with, any software program or product other than
> > a TDS Product (as defined above),
>
> Folks here seem to think that distributing source code WILL enable
> the TDS protocol to be used in development.... Can't argue
> with that.
>
> >(ii) your TDS Product(s)
> > will not implement a protocol that is competitive with, or a
> > substitute, for the TDS Protocol.
>
> ..Meaning that SQL*Net can't go into the same product, or
> the product can't work with MS SQL server? Anything to prevent
> the same folks from implementing those protocols in a different
> source tree, i.e. a different product? (Not saying folks should,
> just asking)
>
> >2.2 License Restrictions. This is a limited license, not a sale. You
> > are granted no right to transfer, sublicense, distribute, sell,
> > assign or
> > convey the TDS Specification or the TDS Protocol or any part of
> > either of them, to any other party
>
> Are folks not wanting to document the protocol in the FreeTDS distro?
>
> Section 8.1 seems the same problem with 2.1.i , I think. Folks don't
> feel they can release source without releasing the info they're not
> supposed to. If Sybase specifically declared that releasing source
> did not constitute releasing the spec, would folks have a problem
> with the NDA?
>
> Other issues:
>
> Is something (clause) needed to allow discussion on the mailing list?
>
> I'm just trying to help folks decided what they want. If any changes are to
> be made, it would probably be most productive to have everything in
> one shot, and for the FreeTDS folks to have suggested changes. None
> of this applies to me (I probably can't work on FreeTDS myself at all)
> I'm just interested on our customer's behalf.
>
> Ryan




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page