On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for grounding the discussion, Ross. The way I read this, then,
is that it's a risk to release code under any license for an API with
an NDA. So is there such a thing as an interface that's specifically
GPL-incompatible?