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:* [email protected] > *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: [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 > > >
