Re: License Question

Frediano Ziglio <freddy77 <at> gmail.com> writes:

> > I know this thread is a few years old so please forgive me
> > if I'm beating a dead horse. I suppose these questions are
> > more about LGPL in general, but would appreciate any thoughts
> > given that the specific LGPL-covered software that we are
> > concerned about is FreeTDS.
> >
> > I am involved in a closed-source commercial project which
> > includes some functionality to connect to and interact with a
> > SQL server database. Below are the distribution choices we are
> > considering. Are #1, #2 and/or #3 allowable under the FreeTDS
> > license terms, assuming that a) all required notices are provided,
> > b) no source or object code is made available to the client, other
> > than that of FreeTDS, and c) FreeTDS is incorporated into the end
> > solution either by one of our executables making a system call to
> > execute a FreeTDS executable (such as freebcp), or by calling a
> > function that is available via dynamically linking to the FreeTDS
> > library.
> >
> > 1. Provide client with a physical box that provides services over the
> > network. Client has no access to files of any sort inside the box.
> > The box ships with various object code including the FreeTDS
> > executable(s) and/or dynamically-linked libraries that are used by
> > some of our commercial, closed-source executables.
> >
> > 2. Provide client with means to install software on its own computers.
> > This is the same as #1 except that now, the client owns the physical
> > box that holds the files, and has access to those files (including
> > FreeTDS executables and/or DLLs that are bundled with installation).
> >
> > 3. Same as #2 except that we do not ship with any FreeTDS
> > executables or libraries. Instead, client must install FreeTDS
> > components on their own.
> >
> > 4. Same as #3 except that instead of client installing FreeTDS,
> > client installs the Microsoft SQL Server tools.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your help
> >
> 
> I don't see many problems. Unless you static link FreeTDS (which is
> possible but in this case you need customer to change the lgpl code of your
> executable... that is provide a blob for the rest of code and source for
> freetds) I don't see the problem. You can use the tsql output as you like,
> just you need to provide sources if client request them. I think a link at
> the version you used if you don't change sources.
> 
> You didn't specify which OS and platform is using your system.
> 
> Frediano
> 

Thank you. The OS's for options 1, 2, 3, and 4 would be, respectively:
1. OSX (10.10+) or Linux (not sure which, but a stable release from 2013
or later)
2, 3, and 4: Windows 7.

So just to be crystal clear, am I right in saying that it is your understanding
(with the caveat that you're not giving me legal advice and I need to get my
own lawyer to do that) that if I never static link (and always dynamic link),
and I include the proper notice provisions related to FreeTDS's license, then
under options 1 or 2 (as well as 3), I am not obligated to disclose any of my
company's proprietary source code or object code (other than executable
binaries)?

Again-- sorry to beat this one so much but staying within the bounds of the
licensing while keeping our code closed-source is extremely important to us
and is the only way we would be able to use (and in doing so, potentially
contribute to) FreeTDS.