Re: TDS versions

At 1:34 AM -0400 5/29/08, James K. Lowden wrote:
>Craig Berry wrote:
>> So if I contribute code  I'm covered, but if my blender of the future
>> wants to embed FreeTDS in its firmware so it can retrieve the latest
>> margarita recipes from the mother ship
>
>Where did you get your blender?  I want one.  Especially after today. 

I said "future" --  I haven't invented it yet. :-)

> > and if that future version of FreeTDS includes anything covered by the
>> patent, then my layman's reading is that the open source pledge does
>> nothing at all for me; instead I have to pay licensing fees to Microsoft
>> just as if I had obtained the implementation from them. 
>
>I'd agree, except that I think it's the distributor -- i.e. manufacturer
>in this case -- who's liable for royalty payments. 

What I didn't make clear in my example was that this hypothetical
future me would be switching hats and distributing a commercial
product that incorporates FreeTDS.  A more mundane example, like Star
Office including an ODBC driver, probably would have been clearer.
The point of the LGPL, as I understand it, is that people can
incorporate a library in a product that may or may not be free.

> > I had thought (correct me if I'm wrong) that the LGPL would allow such
>> use with some restrictions.
>
>Sure, just not that one.  ;-)

The point that I'm stumbling towards, and that you touched on in your
other message about patents being different from licenses, is that
restrictions on distribution really are restrictions on contribution
in disguise, and the open source pledge looks pretty thin on second
reading.  If I'm free to contribute, but someone else controls how
people can use what I contribute, then my freedom isn't worth much.

I see you've now once again made my point better than I did with the
example of OpenLink.
-- 
________________________________________
Craig A. Berry
mailto:[email protected]

"... getting out of a sonnet is much more
 difficult than getting in."
                 Brad Leithauser