Simply having the Zend Framework components that use these services in your web application doesn't violate any license. In the case of AudioScrobbler, you're only violating the license if you actually use the component to query the web service and you do something with the response content that is considered "commercial".
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Federico Cargnelutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Pádraic > > Yes, no one argues that, we all know that it's not Zend's responsibility to > provide such information. I'm just saying that some components distributed > with the ZF cannot be used by my company, and therefore I have to make sure > that they get excluded from the deployment process. It's my responsibility > to make sure that these files get excluded from the framework, there's no > question about that. Now, I just found out about this yesterday. What if no > one had reported this to me? I assumed everything was fine, and of course, I > made a mistake. So what I'm trying to say is that there are ways to help > other developers avoid making the same mistake I made, like for example, > adding extra information to the docblock, or telling them "this component is > for non-commercial use only". > > > > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Jordan Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> I would say that providing a link is as far as ZF should go. Stating >> the license terms (or just the type of license) within ZF code or >> documentation would be a maintenance headache because licenses can and >> do change. In the case of a license change, ZF would then have >> outdated licensing information, which I would argue is more harmful >> than not providing any information at all. >> >> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Federico Cargnelutti >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Again, it's not ZFs responsibility to spell out license restrictions >> >> that may or may not exist for a given service that it provides a client >> >> for. >> > >> > You make it sound like providing extra and valuable information is a bad >> > thing. I think the more information you provide to the user, the better. >> > At >> > the end of the day, that's what the docblock is for right? >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Bryan Dunlap >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> >> Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue >> >> From: "Greg Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Date: Thu, May 08, 2008 9:00 am >> >> To: fw-general@lists.zend.com >> >> >> >> On 5/8/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> Personally, I've never been in a position where I didn't check T&C >> >> >> and/or license agreement of a service that I was consuming. I've >> >> >> never >> >> >> simply "assumed" that I could use at will. >> >> >> >> >> >> <tangent> >> >> >Do you also query the webmasters of all publicly available web pages >> >> >you encounter before allowing your browser to render them? >> >> >> >> >A webservice is just a fancy buzzword for "we wrap our content in XML >> >> >for your convenience". If it's not supposed to be public then it >> >> >should require authentication. >> >> </tangent> >> >> >> >> >-- >> >> >Greg Donald >> >> >http://destiney.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> Again, it's not ZFs responsibility to spell out license restrictions >> >> that may or may not exist for a given service that it provides a client >> >> for. I think providing URLs in the manual and/or the component's >> >> docblock is more than enough, and should be considered a convenience >> >> for >> >> the developer. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Jordan Ryan Moore > > -- Jordan Ryan Moore
