 |
 |
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.