> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Uckun [mailto:tim@...]
> Sent: Lunes 14 de Agosto de 2000 18:07
>
> Could somebody please translate this or elaborate some more on it.

Is elaborate the same than guess? It's difficult to draw a straight line
without all the fine details.

> from the IBDI website.
>
> "During the week, author-editor Helen Borrie announced to the
> translators'
> committee that progress
> on the book would be stopped for a few weeks, until confidence
> returned to
> the commercial
> community and it would once more become possible to secure the necessary
> sponsorship for the
> project"

That's in fact the medulla of the message Helen posted to the
IBDH-Translators list to avoid people waiting for something that won't occur
in the intended timeline. It doesn't mean the IBDH is dead, tho. If the
opportunity arises, it can be retaken.

> Does this mean that this document is on hold till newco gets some money?

It seems you are mangling the facts. Let me be clear, assuming I can be
clear instead of causing more confusion:

- The IBDH (IB Developer's Handbook) is the idea and effort of Helen Borrie.

- The IBDH is not endorsed officially or mandated by Ann Harrison or NewCo
or Borland.

- The IBDH is a book originally intended to be written in English, so Helen
would get sponsors and editors for the English version and hopefully, money
for the time used to write such a book. The nice idea was that regardless of
what Helen would do with the book, the license would allow anyone to
translate it to another language (selling the translation is more complex to
explain). And that was the spirit behind the IBDH-Translators list: to have
a group of volunteers for creating the electronic equivalent of the same
book in as many languages as possible. The translation would be available
for general audiences.

- When someone wanted to take control of one of the translations, alleging
implicit rights due to an agreement with ISC_V (the company that never was,
as you know) to be a VAR in Europe, both Ann Harrison and Paul Beach stated
clearly that the IBDH was Helen's idea and property, so ISC had nothing to
force Helen to do.

- As time passed and finally ISC_V diluTed in the /dev/nul, the investors
(or sponsors or whatever you want to name them) interested to help in the
funding of the book went away. Again, Ann is not behind an "obscure move",
because she has no control over the book. But as IB's future seemed to
weaken again when the ISC deal was cancelled, the book indirectly lost
interest for sponsors. To quote Helen's mail: "...and I have been exploring
ways to make it possible. Unsuccessfully. The potential sponsors have all
gone, I'm afraid, along with the goodwill and opportunity that businesses
saw in the ISC spin-off."

- So, to answer straight your question: NewCo getting enough money HAS
NOTHING TO DO with Helen's funds. The book has to do with the sponsors Helen
had and they fade as Borland decided to maintain the control of IB. IBDH
never was ISC's book. Nobody was fooled. As I wrote above, the translation
would be available for free in electronic form, so nobody was working free
to make Helen's money. Also, Helen would write the original book, she wasn't
asking for the translators to help with the original writing. The
translators (me included) would take the original English writing and would
try to come with the best version in our respective national languages. And
we wouldn't owe royalties to Helen.

> Also any news on the ODBC? I saw on the newsgroup that easysoft was
> thinking about writing one (I think the author stated that they
> had started
> one but abandoned it and now were reconsidering it).

I don't have an idea about EasySoft. The past week I was reviewing two
products that allow you to produce ODBC or OLE/DB drivers. One is really
very simple but requires the middleware of the vendor and the other is a
powerful toolkit to write a typical ODBC driver (no proprietary middleware).
There was no public price, tho.

> Is there a
> timetable?

AFAICT, no. A Russian company has posted an alpha or beta OLE/DB driver,
but it's not as generic as ODBC is.

> Does anybody know the reason why Jim is holding the ODBC driver back.

For me, it seems that you were subscribed to IB-Architect. If you read the
Open Letter that Jim Starkey (IB creator, if someone doesn't know) wrote the
day the Cobalt deal was in trouble, you'll have an idea. Jim wrote on July,
Friday 14 the Open Letter and here I reproduce two small parts:

"Last December, Borland shut down InterBase. Word leaked out, and the
ensuing outrage forced Borland to reconsider the decision. A number of trial
balloons were released using both my and Ann's names without consultation or
permission. Borland then announced their plans to open-source the product."

"In any case, if the Borland/InterBase deal does not close by July 24, the
deal will be dead. The future of the product will be Dale Fuller, not Ann,
Paul, and Matt. I will not be involved in any capacity."

You can see that Jim envisioned 10 days before that the disaster would
happen. Read the last paragraph: "I will not be involved in any capacity."
Is this enough clear for you? Jim wanted Interbase decoupled from Borland to
be in front of the open source effort. Jim didn't want his name and Ann's
name to be used again by Borland to gain credibility. Nobody enjoys being
manipulated. No ISC_V, then no Jim Starkey and no ODBC driver. The reason is
not precisely economic, but about principles. Jim doesn't believe IB has a
future under Borland's shadow. Other part of the same email:

"About a year and a half ago, I came to the reluctant conclusion that
because of the gross incompetence of Borland management, I could not in good
conscience encourage people to continue with the product. Ann disagreed and
stayed on the list."

Again, Jim doesn't seem to have any clue that old bad times can be reverted
to be new good times for IB inside Borland. As he is the original
implementor of IB, not suprise he was strong feelings about the product and
strong personal opinions of how Borland manages it.

To add more pepper to this meal, on June, Tuesday 20, Jim wrote:
"Interbase I (Jim, Don, Ann, Dave, Larry, Kathleen, Maggie, et al)
Interbase II An Ashton-Tate Company
Interbase III A captive in a deep, dank dungeon in Scot's Valley
InterBase IV AnnPaulMattEtAlCo."

I think anyone can conclude what "Scot's Valley" means, or do I need to
explain which company is headquartered here? Is "deep, dank dungeon" enough
pictorial description of what Jim thinks?

After these lines above, I leave to your own risk to ask Jim Starkey
directly for the release of the ODBC driver. ;-)

C.