Web services & licensing issues

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Web services & licensing issues

Federico Cargnelutti-3
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_Audioscrobbler, for example, might be using their service illegally without knowing it. If that's the case, I might be wrong, a couple of questions:

1. Is this documented somewhere?
2. What are the requirements, in terms of licensing, when a web service is proposed?
3. Are there any other components/services distributed with the Zend Framework that cannot be used in commercial sites that we need to be aware of?

Regards,
Federico.




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issues

Bradley Holt
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 Audioscrobbler Web Services page and it looks like technically the Audioscrobbler *content* you retrieve through the web service is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License, not the use of the web service itself. I know this probably sounds like a trivial point, but I think it's important. I haven't used Audioscrobbler, but I imagine anyone using the Audioscrobbler API is an Audioscrobbler user who is aware that the content on Audioscrobbler is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License (or at least that it's copyrighted material) and that the API wouldn't give you any special license to this content that you wouldn't otherwise have. Perhaps someone who is an Audioscrobbler user can shed more light on this.

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:37 AM, Federico Cargnelutti <[hidden email]> wrote:
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_Audioscrobbler, for example, might be using their service illegally without knowing it. If that's the case, I might be wrong, a couple of questions:

1. Is this documented somewhere?
2. What are the requirements, in terms of licensing, when a web service is proposed?
3. Are there any other components/services distributed with the Zend Framework that cannot be used in commercial sites that we need to be aware of?

Regards,
Federico.







--
Bradley Holt
[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issues

Federico Cargnelutti-3
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 healthy profit from your site, and using this data to enhance the site, that sounds commercial. Any queries, just get in touch with us."

I'm aware that Zend is not responsible for the use of any of the Zend Framework components, the user is. So, should ZF provide information to the user of the T&C, license and/or any restrictions imposed by a particular Web service? Or a simple link to the T&C page or license?


On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Bradley Holt <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 Audioscrobbler Web Services page and it looks like technically the Audioscrobbler *content* you retrieve through the web service is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License, not the use of the web service itself. I know this probably sounds like a trivial point, but I think it's important. I haven't used Audioscrobbler, but I imagine anyone using the Audioscrobbler API is an Audioscrobbler user who is aware that the content on Audioscrobbler is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License (or at least that it's copyrighted material) and that the API wouldn't give you any special license to this content that you wouldn't otherwise have. Perhaps someone who is an Audioscrobbler user can shed more light on this.


On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:37 AM, Federico Cargnelutti <[hidden email]> wrote:
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_Audioscrobbler, for example, might be using their service illegally without knowing it. If that's the case, I might be wrong, a couple of questions:

1. Is this documented somewhere?
2. What are the requirements, in terms of licensing, when a web service is proposed?
3. Are there any other components/services distributed with the Zend Framework that cannot be used in commercial sites that we need to be aware of?

Regards,
Federico.







--
Bradley Holt
[hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issues

padraicb
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 data's restrictions whether they be copyrights, licenses or terms of usage.

Take another example. What if you use Zend_Feed to retrieve entries from my blog? Is the Zend Framework responsible for informing you that all my content is released under a Creative Commons 3.0 license? ;)

Of course not - that's your responsibility.

Best regards,
Paddy

Federico Cargnelutti-3 wrote
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 healthy profit from your site, and using this data to
enhance the site, that sounds commercial. Any queries, just get in touch
with us."

I'm aware that Zend is not responsible for the use of any of the Zend
Framework components, the user is. So, should ZF provide information to the
user of the T&C, license and/or any restrictions imposed by a particular Web
service? Or a simple link to the T&C page or license?


On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Bradley Holt <bradley.holt@foundline.com>
wrote:

> 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 Audioscrobbler
> Web Services <http://www.audioscrobbler.net/data/webservices/> page and it
> looks like technically the Audioscrobbler *content* you retrieve through the
> web service is licensed under a Creative Commons
> Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License, not the use of the web service
> itself. I know this probably sounds like a trivial point, but I think it's
> important. I haven't used Audioscrobbler, but I imagine anyone using the
> Audioscrobbler API is an Audioscrobbler user who is aware that the content
> on Audioscrobbler is licensed under the Creative Commons
> Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License (or at least that it's
> copyrighted material) and that the API wouldn't give you any special license
> to this content that you wouldn't otherwise have. Perhaps someone who is an
> Audioscrobbler user can shed more light on this.
>
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:37 AM, Federico Cargnelutti <
> fede.carg@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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_Audioscrobbler, for example, might be using their service
> > illegally without knowing it. If that's the case, I might be wrong, a couple
> > of questions:
> >
> > 1. Is this documented somewhere?
> > 2. What are the requirements, in terms of licensing, when a web service
> > is proposed?
> > 3. Are there any other components/services distributed with the Zend
> > Framework that cannot be used in commercial sites that we need to be aware
> > of?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Federico.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Bradley Holt
> bradley.holt@foundline.com
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issue

Federico Cargnelutti-3
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_Audioscrobbler) is what triggered the debate in my company. By providing this component to our developers, they assume that they can use it without having to read any T&C or license agreement.

I'm aware of the restrictions when retrieving data from other sites, but what if I deploy the Zend_Service_* components to 10 different servers, should I assume that all our developers located in different cities know this as well? Should I remove the Zend_Service_* components before deploying the framework to make sure there's no confusion and no one uses them? Or should I write some documentation to inform them about the restrictions imposed by each Web service? And if this is the case, who is responsible of informing me?
 
Regards,
Federico.

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Pádraic Brady <[hidden email]> wrote:

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
data's restrictions whether they be copyrights, licenses or terms of usage.

Take another example. What if you use Zend_Feed to retrieve entries from my
blog? Is the Zend Framework responsible for informing you that all my
content is released under a Creative Commons 3.0 license? ;)

Of course not - that's your responsibility.

Best regards,
Paddy


Federico Cargnelutti-3 wrote:
>
> 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 healthy profit from your site, and using this data to
> enhance the site, that sounds commercial. Any queries, just get in touch
> with us."
>
> I'm aware that Zend is not responsible for the use of any of the Zend
> Framework components, the user is. So, should ZF provide information to
> the
> user of the T&C, license and/or any restrictions imposed by a particular
> Web
> service? Or a simple link to the T&C page or license?
>
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Bradley Holt <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> Audioscrobbler
>> Web Services <http://www.audioscrobbler.net/data/webservices/> page and
>> it
>> looks like technically the Audioscrobbler *content* you retrieve through
>> the
>> web service is licensed under a Creative Commons
>> Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License, not the use of the web
>> service
>> itself. I know this probably sounds like a trivial point, but I think
>> it's
>> important. I haven't used Audioscrobbler, but I imagine anyone using the
>> Audioscrobbler API is an Audioscrobbler user who is aware that the
>> content
>> on Audioscrobbler is licensed under the Creative Commons
>> Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License (or at least that it's
>> copyrighted material) and that the API wouldn't give you any special
>> license
>> to this content that you wouldn't otherwise have. Perhaps someone who is
>> an
>> Audioscrobbler user can shed more light on this.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:37 AM, Federico Cargnelutti <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > 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_Audioscrobbler, for example, might be using their service
>> > illegally without knowing it. If that's the case, I might be wrong, a
>> couple
>> > of questions:
>> >
>> > 1. Is this documented somewhere?
>> > 2. What are the requirements, in terms of licensing, when a web service
>> > is proposed?
>> > 3. Are there any other components/services distributed with the Zend
>> > Framework that cannot be used in commercial sites that we need to be
>> aware
>> > of?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Federico.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bradley Holt
>> [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>


-----
Pádraic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com
http://www.patternsforphp.com
OpenID Europe Foundation - Irish Representative
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Web-services---licensing-issues-tp17100104p17122421.html
Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issue

till
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Federico Cargnelutti
<[hidden email]> 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 with the Zend
Framework code is your responsibility, you can't expect warning flags
all over. Those warning flags are at the website when you sign up for
an API key (Terms of Service are usually there for a reason).

Till
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issue

Federico Cargnelutti-3
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 10:00 AM, till <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Federico Cargnelutti
<[hidden email]> 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 with the Zend
Framework code is your responsibility, you can't expect warning flags
all over. Those warning flags are at the website when you sign up for
an API key (Terms of Service are usually there for a reason).

Till

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Web services & licensing issue

bryan.dunlap
In reply to this post by Federico Cargnelutti-3

>> 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 will.

I think putting the URL for the service in the component's docblock is
more than sufficient.  Ultimately, the onus is on developers (consumers)
to investigate and understand what they're using.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issue

Greg Donald
On 5/8/08, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> 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 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.


--
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issue

Federico Cargnelutti-3
In reply to this post by bryan.dunlap
> 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, <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> 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 will.

I think putting the URL for the service in the component's docblock is
more than sufficient.  Ultimately, the onus is on developers (consumers)
to investigate and understand what they're using.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issue

weierophinney
Administrator
In reply to this post by Federico Cargnelutti-3
-- Federico Cargnelutti <[hidden email]> 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, but it's not always like that. That's why
> I mentioned Audioscrobbler.

We provide the tool for accessing the content, but it is up to the
individual developer to make sure that they are in compliance with the
service's terms of use. Many services do this via an API key, as Till
indicates. For those that don't, it's up to the developer to read and
understand the terms of service. In all service consumables, we link to
the service provider, so that the developer can do so -- you can see
this clearly in the first paragraph describing
Zend_Service_AudioScrobbler.

> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:00 AM, till <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Federico Cargnelutti
>     <[hidden email]> 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 with the Zend
>     Framework code is your responsibility, you can't expect warning flags
>     all over. Those warning flags are at the website when you sign up for
>     an API key (Terms of Service are usually there for a reason).

--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Software Architect       | [hidden email]
Zend - The PHP Company   | http://www.zend.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issue

Marcus Bointon
In reply to this post by Greg Donald
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
--
Marcus Bointon
Synchromedia Limited: Creators of http://www.smartmessages.net/
UK resellers of info@hand CRM solutions
[hidden email] | http://www.synchromedia.co.uk/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issue

Greg Donald
On 5/8/08, Marcus Bointon <[hidden email]> 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 use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from
the rights holders
</snip>

Why would a site purposely build a web service around a copyrighted
work, not require authentication to it, then fault me for accessing
it?


--
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issue

Bradley Holt
In reply to this post by Marcus Bointon
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Marcus Bointon <[hidden email]> 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 you're saying that you think all public web pages are copyright-free?

This is why I earlier brought up the differentiation between the licensing of the *content* and the use of the *service*. Any public web page is implicitly letting you "use" it (access it, load the page, have your web browser cache it, etc.). This goes for a web service as well - unless it's locked behind an API key then one can assume the *service* is free to be used as you want (now, there are probably terms of use which one should be aware of). None of this means that you have anything beyond fair-use rights to the *content* of that website or web service. In this situation (Audioscrobbler), the license only applies to the *content* not the *service*.
 


Marcus
--
Marcus Bointon
Synchromedia Limited: Creators of http://www.smartmessages.net/
UK resellers of info@hand CRM solutions
[hidden email] | http://www.synchromedia.co.uk/





--
Bradley Holt
[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issue

weierophinney
Administrator
In reply to this post by Federico Cargnelutti-3
-- Federico Cargnelutti <[hidden email]> 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 that since the links are in the manual, there's no need to
do this. However, not everyone reads the manual, and it *would* be good
to have this in the code.

Please place an issue in the tracker requesting links to each service
(note: not just AudioScrobbler) in the class docblocks.


> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:33 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>     >> 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 will.
>
>     I think putting the URL for the service in the component's docblock is
>     more than sufficient.  Ultimately, the onus is on developers (consumers)
>     to investigate and understand what they're using.
>
>
>
>

--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Software Architect       | [hidden email]
Zend - The PHP Company   | http://www.zend.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issue

till
In reply to this post by Federico Cargnelutti-3
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Federico Cargnelutti
<[hidden email]> 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:
http://www.audioscrobbler.net/data/webservices/

See Licensing. I think this is no big deal. If you don't read it and
skip over it, then that is not a ZF problem.

Till
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Web services & licensing issue

bryan.dunlap
In reply to this post by Federico Cargnelutti-3


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue
From: "Greg Donald" <[hidden email]>
Date: Thu, May 08, 2008 9:00 am
To: [hidden email]

On 5/8/08, [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
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.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issue

Federico Cargnelutti-3
> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue
From: "Greg Donald" <[hidden email]>
Date: Thu, May 08, 2008 9:00 am
To: [hidden email]

On 5/8/08, [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
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.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issue

padraicb
In reply to this post by Federico Cargnelutti-3
Nobody is suggesting it's bad, just that it's not necessary and isn't the framework's or Zend's responsibility. All code in the framework merely facilitates an interface to these web services which in no way falls under those web services' terms of use, licensing or copyrighting. The usage of a developer may, but its then their responsibility alone to ensure they meet the requirement of the service in question and that will always involve reading the terms of use and any attached licensing of data.

I don't see what the problem there is...
 
Pádraic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com
http://www.patternsforphp.com
OpenID Europe Foundation Member-Subscriber


----- Original Message ----
From: Federico Cargnelutti <[hidden email]>
To: Bryan Dunlap <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2008 11:14:55 PM
Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue

> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue
From: "Greg Donald" <[hidden email]>
Date: Thu, May 08, 2008 9:00 am
To: [hidden email]

On 5/8/08, [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
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.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Web services & licensing issue

Jordan Moore-2
In reply to this post by Federico Cargnelutti-3
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
<[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [fw-general] Web services & licensing issue
>> From: "Greg Donald" <[hidden email]>
>> Date: Thu, May 08, 2008 9:00 am
>> To: [hidden email]
>>
>> On 5/8/08, [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
>> 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
12