My opinion is that this sounds like a very odd or poorly-designed API. If
some of their APIs are for unreleased or experimental features, I understand
having NDA's for those. But for the most part, the API should cover the
core functions of the product. What those core functions are should be no
secret, and anything proprietary about how they work should be fully hidden
from the people using the API. Otherwise, NDA or no, the API is worthless.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Bill Dueber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks -- this is great news! Is there anyone from Ex Libris (or, really,
> any other vendor) floating around that would like to comment in kind???
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Kaplanian, Harry <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> > There was a thread that started April 2nd about the Serials Solutions
> > API and its NDA.
> > We would like to clarify that the non-disclosure agreement which we ask
> > libraries to sign before receiving the documentation for our APIs does
> > not limit the library IN ANY WAY from contributing their own code to
> > other institutions. The posting on code4lib from one of our support
> > staff was incorrect.
> > We ask libraries to sign a non-disclosure agreement before receiving the
> > API's and accompanying documentation because once signed, API users have
> > access to propriety information through communication with our
> > development staff.
> > Obviously, our software is our primary asset. We ask for the
> > non-disclosure so that the technical details of that asset are not
> > shared with a potential competitor. However, the code that the library
> > develops using the API belongs to the library. The library is not
> > limited from contributing that code to the community. In fact, we would
> > encourage you to do so.
> > Thanks!
> > Harry Kaplanian
> > Director of Product Management
> > Serials Solutions
> Bill Dueber
> Library Systems Programmer
> University of Michigan Library