On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 6:54:14 PM UTC+1, Jed Carty wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Maybe you can modify the $:/core/templates/tiddlywiki5.html tiddler
including your own license: $:/MY/copyright.txt
`<meta name="copyright"
content="{{$:/MY/copyright.txt}}{{$:/core/copyright.txt}}" />`
$:/MY/copyright.txt would say something like
`
blahblah wiki is copywrite :ME
This software contains components from tiddlywiki which are available
under this license:
[Copy of the tiddlywiki BSD license goes here]
`
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/28c6e945-8056-4a1c-a67f-91d8f070c571%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
