I think Federico is making a reasonable point and I don't see that it
takes that much to sort out.
The manual for Zend_Service_Audioscrobbler says "For more information
about the Audioscrobbler REST Web Service, please visit the
Audioscrobbler Web Service site." or, another example,
Zend_Service_Flickr, "To obtain a key and for more information about
the Flickr REST Web Service, please visit the Flickr API
Documentation." or "In order to use Zend_Service_Amazon, you should
already have an Amazon developer API key. To get a key and for more
information, please visit the Amazon Web Services web site."
I think all that is needed is to emphasise that checking the
"information" includes reading the terms of service, both in the
manual and the code. It would be hard for that to be unclear to any
developer and it's really the most important starting point before you
even read about the component. If the providers license doesn't allow
the use you're expecting then you don't even need to read the manual
pages!
Nick
Wil, I think you explained it much better than me. I apologize if I
caused any confusion.
I'm not saying the component violates someone's license, because it
doesn't. My particular problem is that I can't use it. This raises
the following question in my company, why a component that we
cannot use is distributed with the ZF? That's the main reason why I
requested additional information to be added to the docblock. So,
that's basically my problem. Possible solution that I can think of
are:
- Offering these components as a separate download.
- Zend_Service_* developers providing more information to the end
user.
- Having 2 versions of ZF, ZF Personal, and ZF Enterprise.
Regards,
Federico
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Wil Sinclair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whoaaaaaa, there! I haven't been following this discussion closely
up to this point. You make it sound like the distribution of these
components violates someone's license, but if I read it in detail I
believe you are saying that you can't use some service that these
components access according to their licensing.
We're very careful about keeping ZF's licensing story simple and
unambiguous. Just to make it 100% clear, can someone please list all
services that are of concern here along with what the *precise*
concern is. I will see if there's anything we need to do to address
these concerns in the project.
Please understand, we can't allow this conversation to confuse
casual list observers- crystal-clean IP is one of our greatest
strengths!
Thanks.
,Wil
From: Federico Cargnelutti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:55 PM
To: fw-general@lists.zend.com
Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue
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
