On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Eric Hellman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Since the Metalib API is not public, to my knowledge, I don't know whether it gets disclosed with an NDA. And you can't run or develop Xerxes without an ExLibris License, because it depends on a proprietary and unspecified data set.

This is a very good point (and neither here nor there on the licensing
issue).  Ex Libris, in particular, has always had an awkward
relationship between the NDA-for-customers-eyes-only policy regarding
their X-Services documentation and their historic tolerance for open
source applications built upon said services.  The latter undermines
the former significantly, since the documentation could theoretically
be reverse-engineered if the open source projects' uses of it are
comprehensive enough.  I'll leave whether or not having an NDA on API
documentation makes sense as an exercise of the reader.

It does mean, however, that Ex Libris could at any point claim that
these projects violate those terms, which is a risk, although probably
a risk worth taking.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have SirsiDynix who refuse
the distribution of applications written using their Symphony APIs to
anybody but SD customers-in-good-standing-that-have-received-API-training.

While SD's position is certainly draconian (and, in my opinion, rather
counter-productive), it does let the developer know where she or he
stands with no sense of ambiguity coming from the company.

-Ross.