Hi:

I did. Here is answer from Ted Shelton

> Why doesn't somebody just ask Borland what they will allow to be said
> without getting upset. If they say no mention of InterBase, problem solved.
> If they say nothing, problem solved since we must assume no mention is
> allowed. If they say, sure go ahead, problem solved...

Hi:

Just got this back from Ted Shelton:


//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer:
Robert:

The problem isn't with what you intend to do, it is with what anyone else
might do, given the opportunity. We can't extend a blanket right to
everyone to use the IB name, and just hope that what they do is as
appropriate as what you propose.

If your application works with the generic version of the open sourced IB,
then it will also work with the commercial version of IB. You can certainly
say that your applications has been written to operate with Interbase and
that versions of Interbase are available in both commercial and open source
form. You just can't call YOUR product an Interbase product. That would
infringe our trademark.

The point of the license agreement is not to prevent you from letting people
know that you work with Interbase, it is to make sure that Borland gets
credit for having created the software.

As for the Microsoft issue - I was unaware of this issue but I will pass it
on to the development group so that we can understand what the problem is
and whether there is a workaround or if we need to complain to Microsoft.

thanks

Ted Shelton



-----Original Message-----
From: Robert F. Tulloch [mailto:tultalk@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 6:09 PM
To: tshelton@...
Subject: Re: InterBase Name



//-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question:
Hi:


I am referring to developing an app using BCB & IBX and the Borland open
source version of IB. As I quoted before, the lic agreement, again below, requires
the we include a statement.

II.1. Advertising Materials. All advertising materials mentioning
features or use
of the covered Code must display the following acknowledgment: "This product
includes
software developed by Borland Software Corp. "

How could it be a problem to say "and that software is IB Open Source" ?


This does not make sense. You supply the BDE and we use and deploy it with
our apps. This is no different except that it is open source and not "supported" by
Borland. It is still Borland code.

I think it would be worse to call it something else as that would not be
furthering the Borland identity and association with the name Interebase which I am
sure you would like to get as many people familiar with as possible.

There are lots of "little" developers who want to use IB but can't sell a
product which includes the licensing cost, at least right now. This will discourage
people from using the Borland version and head them over to Firebird or whatever.
Since they will probably fork the code, apps developed for that fork may not run with
IB either your open source or licensed product so you will be losing out on potential
"customers" as well as losing the name recognition potential.

As a side issue, are you taking any steps against M$ for their adding the
.gdb extension to their file monitoring/recovery system which causes IB to run
very, very slowly on ME? I think this was done on purpose to make IB look bad and have
sent a letter to the DOJ alluding to that.

Thanks again.

Best regards