| Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] Crypto Code |
|---|---|
| Author | Jim Starkey |
| Post date | 2005-04-10T12:13:01Z |
Alexander Klenin wrote:
IPL but never noticed the amendment. If I had, I would suggested to
Borland's legal department (not the brightest lights on the planet) that
that clause was probably unenforceable because it was fraudulent because
Borland/Inprise didn't originally develop the code, I did. They had, at
some point, replaced my original copyright text with text saying the
code was originally developed by Inprise. I suggested that since that
was false, it might affect the legality of their copyright statement.
This apparently touched a sore point, and they had us replace the
boilerplate with "code developed by Inprise Corporation and Predecessors".
Hi. My name's Jim. I'm the precessor. If Borland bugs you, for the
price of an airplane ticket, I'll testify under oath that I originated
the product. If you collect damages on counter claims, I'll ask, but
not insist, that you kick in a bottle of Lagavulin.
As per the Firebird logo, it is the trademark of Firebird Foundation,
not the Firebird database codebase, so there isn't a problem there
anyway. All original public post-Interbase code I've contributed is
under IDPL which is blessedly free of such silliness.
And finally, the omission of silly appendixes wasn't particularly wise,
it was a no-brainer (in the sense that it didn't take any thought, not
that it originated from Borland legal department).
But really, don't you think it would be more fun to talk about crypto
code than licenses, const, or paragraphing?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>while Firebird, which asks no more than that it's codeInteresting. I had missed that. I was involved in the review of the
>>be available to all comers subject only to a requirement to publish
>>changes that are themselves distributed is a pariah?
>>
>>
>Sadly, that is not true. Firebird does ask more.
>For example, any site that displays Firebird "gloat" logo as described in
>http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php?op=ffoundation&id=gloat_logos
>is in violation of Amendment II.1 of Interbase Public License,
>as well as, arguably, some parts of firebirdsql.org itself.
>Borland is not, for now, pursuing such violations, but nothing
>prevents it from doing so in the future.
>Firebird project decided to drop the advertisement clause when
>mirgating to IDPL, and I think that was a wise decision.
>
>
IPL but never noticed the amendment. If I had, I would suggested to
Borland's legal department (not the brightest lights on the planet) that
that clause was probably unenforceable because it was fraudulent because
Borland/Inprise didn't originally develop the code, I did. They had, at
some point, replaced my original copyright text with text saying the
code was originally developed by Inprise. I suggested that since that
was false, it might affect the legality of their copyright statement.
This apparently touched a sore point, and they had us replace the
boilerplate with "code developed by Inprise Corporation and Predecessors".
Hi. My name's Jim. I'm the precessor. If Borland bugs you, for the
price of an airplane ticket, I'll testify under oath that I originated
the product. If you collect damages on counter claims, I'll ask, but
not insist, that you kick in a bottle of Lagavulin.
As per the Firebird logo, it is the trademark of Firebird Foundation,
not the Firebird database codebase, so there isn't a problem there
anyway. All original public post-Interbase code I've contributed is
under IDPL which is blessedly free of such silliness.
And finally, the omission of silly appendixes wasn't particularly wise,
it was a no-brainer (in the sense that it didn't take any thought, not
that it originated from Borland legal department).
But really, don't you think it would be more fun to talk about crypto
code than licenses, const, or paragraphing?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]