Subject | RE: [ib-support] Re: OT: Supercharged Firebird group? |
---|---|
Author | Leyne, Sean |
Post date | 2002-10-05T17:28:30Z |
Andrew,
header.
approach regarding the interpretation and intent of the IPL as well as
copyright issues.
***There has never been the slightess hint of anything to the
contrary.*** (not that you were suggesting it)
and Phoenix for their implementation of the PC BIOS chip-sets. In both
cases, it was only the fact that the chip-sets had been developed in a
"white-room" environment -- no outside knowledge of the original
code/implementation, just the functional published API/requirements --
which saved them from IBMs wrath.
Sean
> --- In ib-support@y..., "Leyne, Sean" <sleyne@a...> wrote:I was mistaken, regarding Dmitry's changes, the new module has the IPL
> > The only module, that I'm aware of, in the engine that is not
> covered by the IPL is Dmitry Yemanov's new in memory sort/temp file
> functions -- this was new work which he created. Of course, the
> java-driver which is entirely new work is not convered by the IPL as
> well.
>
> The new java driver clearly falls outside the IPL, but regarding
> Dmitry's contribution - do you know this for a fact, after
> consulting an IP lawyer? IPL's Clause 1.9 would seem to cover both
> content and *structure*, meaning extra modules could get scoped:
header.
> Given Borland's aggressive and unpredictable behaviour at times,I can assure you that the Firebird project is following the most prudent
> Firebird (Yaffil, et at) need to exercise caution. With all the
> development work going on, people are starting to lose site of the
> IPL. Probably the only thing that might stop Borland from shutting
> down a project in violation of the IPL is the bad press it would
> generate (sure, there are other things, like the benefit of
> harvesting bugfixes and so on).
approach regarding the interpretation and intent of the IPL as well as
copyright issues.
***There has never been the slightess hint of anything to the
contrary.*** (not that you were suggesting it)
> Having been involved in copyright issues for many years now, I canI agree, I always think back to the very early case of IBM suing Compaq
> tell you: when you create something, be very sure that you are in
> fact the owner of that physical or intellectual property. Billions
> of dollars have changed hands because people only thought they were.
and Phoenix for their implementation of the PC BIOS chip-sets. In both
cases, it was only the fact that the chip-sets had been developed in a
"white-room" environment -- no outside knowledge of the original
code/implementation, just the functional published API/requirements --
which saved them from IBMs wrath.
Sean