Maybe you can add the tag as used in github - that would clearly define the limits.
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 8:17:17 PM UTC+1, Jeremy Ruston wrote: > > Hi Jed > > I think you are onto something important here. You're right that the way > that the core license appears at the moment gives it the apparent scope of > the entire file, including the content. So, I'd agree that there's a > potential issue here; we won't make things worse by not doing anything, but > there is a good opportunity to try to make things better. > > I wonder whether there is any kind of precedent from the pre-digital age. > Perhaps a book that includes blank spaces that are explicitly intended for > the reader/user to write their own content, like a baby book for parents to > fill in the details of their child. Presumably the copyright in the > illustrations and pre-printed text would be independent of the users > copyright in their own content. > > I like the idea of prompting users to select a license for their content, > and and then baking their choice into the head of the HTML file. > > Best wishes > > Jeremy > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Jed Carty <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Working on the resume builder edition has made me think about tiddlywiki >> and licensing in the context of an extensible single page application. From >> what I have seen none of the existing software licenses cover the cases of >> a plugin architecture in a single page application. For most current >> plugins the authors seem to be at least comfortable with the idea of their >> work being free software <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software>, >> I think this is a good thing and, if a license is needed, I want plugins I >> make to have a permissive license. >> >> The problem as I see it comes in when you consider that TiddlyWiki can be >> used to make creative works where there should be some distinction between >> tiddlywiki as the container and the content created. The license currently >> says >> >> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without >> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: >> >> Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, >> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. >> >> Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, >> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation >> and/or other materials provided with the distribution. >> >> >> which, as far as the TiddlyWiki core itself is concerned is a good thing >> in my opinion. But in the case of the resume builder, since tiddlywiki is a >> single page application, the license would apply to the content (your >> resume) as well which is probably not a desirable situation. For the resume >> builder this isn't really a problem because it would most likely be used >> offline and the output would presumably be a pdf which wouldn't be subject >> to the same license, but for something like the interactive fiction engine >> I made there isn't any way using the currently available software licenses >> to make a distinction between the tool and a game that someone makes using >> the tool. I would like TiddlyWiki to be usable as an authoring tool for >> creative content, and I would like the authors of that content to be able >> to use their work in a commercial context, but unless some distinction is >> made between tiddlywiki and content created using tiddlywiki than that >> isn't practical. >> >> >> I think that it would make sense in terms of creative control to be able >> to distinguish between the tiddlywiki core, plugins, and wiki content for >> the purposes of licensing. >> This also comes up because, while I don't think that it really grants or >> removes any user rights compared to those given by the tiddlywiki license, >> I would like to give the content of the wiki reference wiki a creative >> commons license just so there isn't any question about people being able to >> use or copy what I put on it. >> >> I don't think that we have anyone who is familiar with the legal issues >> surrounding this, but if anyone does know I would be interested to hear >> about if separating the different parts of tiddlywiki like this would be >> possible. >> >> I wrote some other thoughts about this and the problems making a >> distinction between the different parts of tiddlywiki here >> <http://inmysocks.tiddlyspot.com/#Thoughts%20about%20TiddlyWiki%20and%20Licensing> >> . >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TiddlyWiki" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/b1ebc8a2-1248-492c-af5a-695b1998ad92%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/b1ebc8a2-1248-492c-af5a-695b1998ad92%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > Jeremy Ruston > mailto:[email protected] <javascript:> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/39ebb615-2ea0-4fd0-b1cf-fc9fd2210962%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
