Hmmm, That's interesting. This points out, that we should create a "best practice" info about plugin configuration <https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/2824> / licensing, soon.
On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 10:29:01 PM UTC+2, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: > > I noticed that you can bundle components of plugins (??is that a > copyright issue??). > > For instance I'm bundling from PMario's Bundler Plugin these two Tiddlers > ... > > > $:/plugins/wikilabs/bundler/doc/table-all-filters > $:/plugins/wikilabs/bundler/ui/Buttons/test-filter > > ... to include in all wikis, devoid of the Bundler Plugin, because they > are so useful & don't need the rest of the plugin to run. > I think it's more a management problem, than a licensing issue. The plugin uses a BSD-3-clause <https://wikilabs.github.io/editions/bundler/#%24%3A%2Fplugins%2Fwikilabs%2Fbundler%2Flicense> license. So every tiddler shipped with the plugin is part of that agreement. If you follow the link the BSD license <https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause> says: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: > So you can do pretty much everything that you want. Since redistribution "with or without modification" is allowed. So using and redistributing just 2 tiddlers is allowed. ... *if you meet the following conditions... all of them!*: > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, > this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > *So you basically should include the license tiddler*: https://wikilabs.github.io/editions/bundler/#%24%3A%2Fplugins%2Fwikilabs%2Fbundler%2Flicense *too*. It contains the copyright notice. and a link to the original license. .... but no link to the original plugin (.. that's my fault. I should fix this :) I personally don't include the license text itself, since it sometimes is bigger then the plugin source code. So I consider it bloat, if several plugins with the same license are used. They would contain it several times. ... but I like the copyright section, that points out who designed the plugin / content. ... > 2. 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. > With TW this is the same as 1) since javascript is "source and binary form" at the same time. > 3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its > contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this > software without specific prior written permission. > Section 3) is there, to protect the copyright holder from using his/her name in an abusive way. The following paragraph is the "disclaimer" mentioned above in section 1). ... It basically says, that the user is responsible, if s/he breaks something using the plugin. ... > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS > IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, > THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR > PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR > CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, > EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, > PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; > OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, > WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR > OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF > ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. > ------------------ Some personal thoughts. I do use the BSD-3-clause license for plugin and content, where I want it to be compatible with the TW-license <https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/blob/master/license>, since it is the same. So it will be very easy to implement stuff from my plugins to the core without any licensing incompatibilities. For other stuff I use the Creative-Commons licenses in all their flavors. (because I like them) They can be "very restrictive" as: CC-BY-NC-SA <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/> and go to very open like: CC-BY <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/> ... So this license-family works very well, if you want to start very restrictive and loosen the license (if you want), when the project evolves. They are all compatible. So switching from restrictive to open step by step doesn't cause any licensing incompatibilities. ( Remark: Going from open to restrictive doesn't work, since everyone can use the open stuff, as soon as it is published.) The most important thing, about licensing, for me is: *You can always ask the author to change the license, if you have good arguments.* See the communication with the vis.js <https://github.com/almende/vis/issues/285> project that is used by TiddlyMap. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/1fe4a23c-3af3-414e-b94b-13a4961d9a12%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
