OTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:25 PM
To: fw-general@lists.zend.com
Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue
On 5/8/08, Marcus Bointon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you're saying that you think all public web pages are
copyright-free?
Yes, they are prot
Hi,
I completely agree with all the comments posted here, this is something that
we need to take care internally. I've already added a new rule to our
deployment script. To be honest, I skipped the entire Zend_Service_* part of
the manual, so I wasn't familiar with these components and because we
I agree; a link in the code is a good compromise.
Beyond that, this is a training issue if this is truly relevant to your
company, Federico. Otherwise, you can create a deployment script that
removes these components.
-Matt
On Fri, May 9, 2008 8:23 am, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> Let's be
- 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:
t 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
servers- 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
> 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:
t; 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.
>> &g
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
> 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
> &g
> 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:
Brady
http://blog.astrumfutura.com
http://www.patternsforphp.com
OpenID Europe Foundation Member-Subscriber
- Original Message
From: Federico Cargnelutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Bryan Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: fw-general@lists.zend.com
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2008 11:
er, 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: "Gre
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:
>> Personall
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Federico Cargnelutti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Till, I think you've just made my point, we should try to reduce
> assumptions as much as possible.
No, I said you shouldn't assume anything when using a (web)service.
Took me three (3) clicks to find this page:
-- Federico Cargnelutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Thursday, 08 May 2008, 05:01 PM +0100):
> > Ultimately, the onus is on developers (consumers) to investigate and
> understand what they're using.
>
> Yes, adding a URL to the T&C and/or license in the docblock would be ideal.
I could argue tha
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Marcus Bointon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 8 May 2008, at 17:00, Greg Donald wrote:
>
> 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.
On 5/8/08, Marcus Bointon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you're saying that you think all public web pages are copyright-free?
Yes, they are protected under the fair use doctine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows
limited us
-- Federico Cargnelutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Thursday, 08 May 2008, 11:33 AM +0100):
> Hi Till, I think you've just made my point, we should try to reduce
> assumptions
> as much as possible.
>
> What you said about the API key forcing the user to accept the terms
> and conditions sounds
On 8 May 2008, at 17:00, Greg Donald wrote:
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.
So you're saying that you think all public web pages are copyright-free?
Marcus
-
> Ultimately, the onus is on developers (consumers) to investigate and
understand what they're using.
Yes, adding a URL to the T&C and/or license in the docblock would be ideal.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:33 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> And if this is the case, who is responsible of info
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.
Do you also query the webmasters of all publicly av
>> And if this is the case, who is responsible of informing me?
>> Regards,
>> Federico.
In my opinion, you are.
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 wi
Hi Till, I think you've just made my point, we should try to reduce
assumptions as much as possible.
What you said about the API key forcing the user to accept the terms and
conditions sounds great, but it's not always like that. That's why I
mentioned Audioscrobbler.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Federico Cargnelutti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (...) A user might assume that Zend has some kind (...)
And that's exactly it. An assumption.
Many web services forbid commercial usage with the regular API keys
(Flickr, Google Maps, ...). In any way, what you do
True, but keep in mind that he word Zend_Feed does not contain the name of a
company, like Yahoo or Amazon. A user might assume that Zend has some kind
of agreement with them, and because no link or information is provided, he
uses it in a commercial site.
Basically Audioscrobbler (Zend_Service_Au
I don't see why the Zend Framework should. It offers an implementation of a
web service API which in no way impacts the licensing of content (since
content is NOT distributed with the framework). As usual, if anyone uses a
web service to retrieve data it is their responsibility to be aware of that
Hi Brad
Yes, I was referring to the consumption of the Web service, the component
itself is distributed under the new BSD licence. Some users might not know
that Audioscrobbler does not allow the use of their Web service in
commercial apps. A quote taken from their site:
"If you are making a heal
Federico,
I was curious as to how one could legally license a web service (unless it's
through an API key that can only be obtained for non-commercial use) as a
license does not make much sense for a web services API (a "terms of use"
may make sense, not a license). So, I went and looked at the Au
Hi,
A quick question, visiting the Audioscrobbler's site, I found out that the
Web service they provide is for non-commercial use only and it's distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. No,
this is a bit confusing, people/companies using the
Zend_Service_
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:18 PM, James Dempster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The service which you have provided is a SOAP or HTTP GET service.
Strictly speaking, aren't GET requests part of REST? Which is why I
think this should work?
Till
The service which you have provided is a SOAP or HTTP GET service.
You can use the get service they offer by doing
/stockquote.asmx/GetQuote?symbol=string
example
http://www.webservicex.net/stockquote.asmx/GetQuote?symbol=';
$stockquote =
simplexml_load_string((string)simplexml_load_string(file_g
Is this the part of ZF to use to consume web services?
http://framework.zend.com/manual/en/zend.rest.client.html
I'm trying to work with this:
http://www.webservicex.net/stockquote.asmx/GetQuote?symbol=EBAY
Here's my non-working code:
require_once 'Zend/Rest/Client.php';
$client = new Zend_R
33 matches
Mail list logo
