FreeTDS Development Group

[Brian Bruns <brian.bruns AT gmail.com>]

I'd almost say we've wasted too many words on it already.  Obviously,
they perceive that FreeTDS has cut into their sales and are doing the
only thing a company without a compelling product story can do, FUD. 
I mean the source availability and virus thing (slammer exploited a
feature (port lookup IIRC) that freetds didn't even implement) is
laughable at best.  And the notice from the file makes us look
conscientious if anything.

However.

With regards to the claims of possible illegality of FreeTDS.  This
reflects badly on the project and its developers, and as Jim said is
possibly libelous.  We have any lawyers in the crowd?  Making libelous
statements about a bunch of volunteers can't be a productive business
model now can it.  Perhaps a friendly letter instructing them on the
error of their ways would be in order.  I wouldn't expect them to take
the page down, but removing the false accusations would be sufficient
in my book.

Brian

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 22:20:57 -0500, James K. Lowden
<jklowden AT schemamania.org> wrote:
> "Michael Sims" <michaels AT crye-leike.com> wrote:
> > Sorry if this has been brought up before; I searched the archives and
> > found no reference to it.
> 
> News to me, Michael.  Thanks for pointing it out.
> 
> > <quote>
> > Third-party "wire-level" products depend upon a third-party
> > reverse-engineering of the database server's network protocols, meaning
> > they can crash your database server. Customers may lose data and
> > experience downtime trying to recover when so-called "wire-level"
> > drivers are used either intentionally, or as Internet viruses like
> > "SQLSlammer". Actually paying someone for a "wire-level" driver may even
> > encourage the spread of such viruses since quite often, they are
> > releasing their reverse-engineering work out into the "open source"
> > world.
> 
> "Interesting" use of quotation marks, I must say.
> 
>
> > Moreover, using an "unauthorized" client like FreeTDS with your
> > proprietary database server may be a violation of the Digital Millenium
> > Copyright Act, a new federal law prohibiting financial benefit from the
> > unauthorized reverse engineering of licensed materials, such as the TDS
> > protocol owned by the shareholders of NYSE:SY.
> > </quote>
> >
> > The page also cites an excerpt from a FreeTDS release note warning
> > against problems with Sybase 12.5 as "proof" that using FreeTDS in
> > general is dangerous.
> 
> One of the things I positively love about free software is its honesty and
> lack of puffery.  Proprietary software is riddled with bugs: I have
> written, for proprietary products, valid C++ that won't compile and valid
> SQL that returns invalid results, yet nary a disclaimer or warning do I
> find.  Free software strives to make clear its flaws, that the user may
> avoid them.
> 
> It is disheartening to see one's own words used to attack one's own work.
> Our other competitors, if they can be called that, don't cast aspersions
> on FreeTDS; Microsoft itself recommends FreeTDS to its, ahem, Unix
> customers (and produced its own guide to it, cf.
> http://www.schemamania.org/projects/freetds/patches/ms.pdf).
>
> Their insinuation that the DCMA might apply is libelous specious nonsense.
>  The DCMA of course "protects" encryption technologies from reverse
> engineering, but, evil as it is, it doesn't outlaw all reverse
> engineering.
> 
> I am left to wonder if www.freetds.org should contain a reply.  You'd
> think by now, given, say, Microsoft's and SCO's experiences that
> commercial interests would know better than to wantonly attack free
> software projects.
> 
> I suppose a letter is in order....
> 
> --jkl