On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 2:38:40 AM UTC+2, Jed Carty wrote: > > Yeah, sorry about that. >
You don't need to be sorry. You expressed your thoughts. I expressed mine :) > My mind somehow went from 'in the html file there isn't anything to tell > you what is the base tiddlywiki with the license and what isn't so you > can't see what the license applies to' to 'the license applies to > everything'. So pretty much all of what I have said is wrong. > You can see it in that way. .. I think proper licensing is important, but it also should be "relatively" easy to use for the author and the end user. So if we think too much and want to cover every little detail and possibility, imo we make it more complicated, that it needs to be. Github gives everyone a very good way to see the differences between "core" - "edition" - "end user" content. IMO the most important things are: - With TW we can go completely open source. MIT, BSD, CC-BY for plugins, content ... - We can use very strict licenses if we need to. eg: CC-BY-NC-SA - and as I wrote: You can always ask the author to change the license. have fun! mario -- 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/07637d56-ad35-4f4f-b356-2cf12fbd0a74%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
