-- Federico Cargnelutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Friday, 09 May 2008, 09:58 AM +0100): > 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.
Let's be crystal clear here: it is up to your organization and developers to use a service according to the terms of the service provider. Zend Framework simply provides classes to access these services should you find that you are compliant. As noted, we already link to the service provider in the manual; at most, I feel we may need to add those links into the class docblocks. It makes no sense to separate these components out to separate downloads or releases, and would only complicate our story, and make things less clear for other ZF users. > 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 P draic > > 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. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney Software Architect | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zend - The PHP Company | http://www.zend.com/
