@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 protected under the fair use doctine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
snip
Fair use
-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
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
: 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
@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
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
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
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
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
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
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 TC
and/or license agreement of a service that I was consuming. I've never
simply assumed that I could use at will.
I
On 5/8/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I've never been in a position where I didn't check TC
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 available
Ultimately, the onus is on developers (consumers) to investigate and
understand what they're using.
Yes, adding a URL to the TC 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 informing
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
--
-- 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 great,
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
snip
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows
limited
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.
So
-- 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 TC and/or license in the docblock would be ideal.
I could argue that since
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
. 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
, 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
:
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
:
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
@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
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
