 |
 |
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?