At 03:42 PM 29-07-00 +0200, you wrote:

> > Fuller's latest moves have made an immediate fork inevitable. A name
> > change looks inevitable, too. This is not a huge problem - Inprise has
> > helped greatly by ensuring that this 15-year-old product has practically no
> > brand recognition.
>I agree with you completely.
>Supposedly most people here are completely fed up with being at
>Delay Foolers mercy.
>A soon fork is absolutely necessary to avoid any further suffering
>from Dales random behaviour and arbitrariness.
>A database management system is much too importang to be toyed
>around with like Dale enjoyed to do it.
>
>Nevertheless, I am somewhat unclear about the intended future relationship
>between the new fork (let's call it for now the small-bad-apples-database,
>sba-db for short) and the Inprise-Interbase-fork.
>
>Do we aim at a peaceful coexistence ?
>In "real life" this always is a good idea and the best way to go
>(my personal opinion), but considering how Dale Fuller has
>fooled us and especially some the most engaged
>ones of us, I can't imagine to go this way in our case..
>After all, it is Dale Fullers ridiculous harrassement
>which forces us to fork *and* to change the name.
>
>The other, more martial way would be trying to starve out
>the Inprise-fork.
>For example, this would mean that we do no longer create a
>"Interbase Developers Handbook"
>and we do not create a
>"Interbase and sba Developers Handbook"
>but only an
>"sba Developers Handbook"
>without ever mentioning Interbase.

In fact, we would HAVE to change the name because Inprise's licence
requires it. Ann H has suggested "Firebird". I think we could do things
with "Firebird Database Developer's Handbook".

But as for "starving out" Inprise's "old" Interbase, I'm sure we won't have
to worry about that. Dale will do it for us. I'm for peaceful
coexistence, personally, unless we are forced to fight.

>I know, this is the Microsoft way of doing things but regarding how
>this two-faced Dale Fuller took us all for a ride....
>
>In the back of my head is growing the notion that some people
>who now probably feel like Dale Fullers personal goofs would
>feel more comfortable with the idea to donate their
>contribution to sba but not to the Inprise-fork.

Think of it more in this way: if you donate your work to the Inprise
branch, Inprise is going to exploit you because they are NOT participating
in Open Source in an acceptable OS manner. The wasteful part comes in the
amount of **rework** we are going to have to do just to get back to the
starting point that ISC was at last week.

>Having an absolutely excellent ODBC-driver available _only_ for sba
>--just as an absolutely random example-- would indeed give sba
>a huge headstart advantage compared to Inprise-Interbase.

That is the current situation - NewCo has the only ODBC driver.

>The same would be true for replication engines and the likes....
>Specializing good tools on sba would let stand Dale out in the cold rain.
>And this is where he belongs and where I want him to be...

I'm sure third-party producers like Synectics would want to make their
products useable with both versions. NewCo's product will be more
acceptable to the "market" because it has the technical strength and the
support of the InterBase heartland. Because Inprise lacks the technical
support, it will become old and wrinkly very fast. Maybe some new users
will pick up the Inprise version but good news travels fast on our networks.

>On the downside, there is the risk that the developer community would split.
> How many of the people willing to translate the IBDH are willing to
> translate the SBDH?

There would be no IBDH, since the name would not be allowed. If people are
not willing to translate the book for the forked version, there will be no
translation.

> What would be the attide of former Interbase VARs towards sba
> (especially if they called themselves interbase-company or the like)?

They have made their relationships with NewCo, not with Inprise. Inprise
has publicly dissociated itself from ISC (except to forbid the use of the
name!). A change of name does not change the company. Those relationships
would stand. Companies using the InterBase name have to get Inprise's
permission now. But what VAR wants to get tangled up in a version of
product that is subject to the whims of a Board that is totally
disconnected from the realities of commitment? Of course they will go with
the "core" InterBase people - it is the only sensible business
decision. It's going to be a whole lot safer recommending "Firebird" (or
whatever) than InterBase. They have been burned by Dale Fuller twice this
year already!

>Besides other considerations, would such a martial
>move comply with ethical standards ?

I think that a proactively hostile attitude on our part would do more harm
than good. Dale Fuller is already soiling the Borland name with
questionable ethics. We don't want to be at war with our colleagues in
Inprise's technical ranks, I'm sure. Both we and Inprise will get much
better synergy and harmony if we bad apples are content just to watch
mainstream IB fizzle out and die from neglect. You can count on "Firebird"
to be the InterBase we all dreamed it could be.

Helen