Every tiddlywiki html file has the license at the top. That license says it applies to the entire file. Since tiddlywiki is a single file than it means that the license applies to all modifications and content added to the wiki. On github where the files are separate than having separate licenses isn't a problem because that is how software licenses normally work, but once the html file is created than either the license at the top is meaningless or it applies to the whole file including all the tiddlers and the content. This is the part that the licenses aren't designed to handle.
With normal code separate modules can be separate files and you can link to our call functions from one without affecting the license. What tiddlywiki does mixes the code together which, in all the instances I have seen, counts as a modification of the bsd code making the result fall under the bsd license. This isn't a problem with the idea of licensing, it is a problem with this situation not being addressed by the specific licenses. Up until you create the html file there isn't any problem, but once the html file is created the entire thing, including all tiddler content, has a bsd license because it is the base tiddlywiki code with modifications. For anything in the base tiddlywiki code and most plugins or editions, this is fine. If see were to make an edition for a portfolio website for writers than any of their writing that they add to the site would be part of the html file which gives it the bsd license. As an example, my site the images are hosted on the server and aren't part of the wiki so they aren't affected by the bad license, but the posts and anything else on the site is part of the wiki, which automatically applies the bsd license because it is a modification of the tiddlywiki code. For the resume builder the edition itself is under the same license as the rest of tiddlywiki, this is what I want. I would like to extend it to be a resume /portfolio site (like LinkedIn, but not useless and evil). The problem is that any content on this site would be under the bsd license and most people I have asked about this have said that they didn't want their resume released under those terms. I think that the ideas behind the bsd license fit very well with what tiddlywiki is and we may be able to get help making a flavor of the license that fits our case, but the current one doesn't. The result you are talking about is exactly how we would want this to work but just writing that some portion of the code (because as a quine there is no distinction between code and content) isn't subject to the license doesn't work or licenses in general would be meaningless. -- 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/635b4506-0781-4684-8f3f-08a8bb1f4897%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
