While I still feel a bit hesitant about this I may be the only one so I will just assume that I am being paranoid and interpreting the license as being stricter than it actually is.
Eric, I hadn't really considered that the license doesn't define source code or any way to distinguish between separate parts of the code, I had just been going by the individual files count as the same code convention that I have seen elsewhere. Given that tiddlywiki is a possibly unique case at the moment I think it would be a good idea to explicitly state what the distinctions are between the core, each plugin and the content of the wiki. Given what you have said I don't think that this would necessarily have to be part of the license statement. And to be clear I wasn't trying to just be argumentative about this, I was just worried that if the problem did exist it could be a serious one. To help with my paranoia I will work on writing something explaining the differences between the separate components for the purposes of licenses and try to put together a simple plugin for adding a license that the user decides on into the html file. -- 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/b91a5806-7eb4-4bf0-a420-6ba2aaea760a%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
