Helen Borrie <helebor@...> wrote:

> Inprise (as they were then) made the beta InterBase 6.0
> open source.

With a view to launching the Open Sourced company
in the light of the Internet bubble which was
fast approaching its zenith? VA Linux IPO'd and
went through the roof.

> Neither Inprise nor Borland (as they
> renamed themselves later) ever had anything to do with
> the Firebird code.

My question is really, if they open sourced and then
closed it again, do they have any rights over
improvements made by Firebird developers under
the terms of the IPL (curren licence?) or of
the Initial Developer's PUBLIC LICENSE Version 1?

> Inprise started an open source project themselves on
> Sourceforge. It was a read-only tree. It lasted for
> about a year and just simply disappeared.

Yes, but did they "take back" the code or what?

> >Is any code developed by Firebird developers susceptible to
> be "robbed" by Embarcadero? Or anyone else?


> Of course. Absolutely.

I should have expressed myself bette - do Embarcadero
have any right to use in their closed source Interbase
product, code contributed by Firebird developers?

> As holders of the copyright, yes, they can do what they like
> with *their* code. With the original IB 6.0 code, they can
> do what they like with *their* code *except* sue anyone for
> using it according to the terms of the licence it was
> released under.

But they can't call Firebird *their* code?

> When sources are open, it means anyone can use them as
> long as that use complies with the conditions of the
> relevant licence.

OK, then, maybe my question can be rephrased as "Would
Embarcadero be complying with the licence were they to
put a Firebird feature into Interbase"?


Paul...

p.s. do you have a reference to Ann Harrison's article about
the whole thing - I Googled but couldn't find it - TIA?

> Helen