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outdated licensing information, which I would argue is more harmful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: [email protected]
>>
>> 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

Reply via email to