Hi, it's me .. Mario. Hope I'm also allowed to respond ;)
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, so the following comments reflect my personal opinion and may be wrong ;) > I've recently made a plugin for TiddlyWiki (tiddlytouch.tiddlyspot.com > <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Ftiddlytouch.tiddlyspot.com&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNE9RX3NBi5nYws5r9kkmaBf7Vf0cA>) > > and added an MIT license. > You added MIT to version 0.1.1 ... So this version will stay with this license for ever. It's published, and if somoene uses this version, they can do with it, what MIT allows them. ... every thing including commercial use. Now I'm thinking about what would be the proper license choice for my > plugin. > IMO MIT is a propper open souce license for the code, that you developed, since most of the 3rd party libs also use MIT. ... Most ... not all. In your license tiddler, you forgot to mention that the plugin / package also contains other libraries, that have their own license. Links to the other tiddlers are OK. eg: - muuri.js ... The MIT license, is included in the source, which is OK. - hammer.js ... MIT license-link is part of the source ... OK - popmotion.js ... license is missing ... You should insert a link. If it's MIT the link is optional. If it uses a different license, chances are high, that the link is needed! - web-animations.js ... http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 ... You probably must provide the readable source code, if someone requests it. So IMO linking to the source will save you trouble, if you didn't modify it. If you did modify the surce code, you need to point to the source you used. - $:/plugins/BTC/tiddly-touch/icons ... If you made them, they are included in your license statement. ... If they come from 3rd parties, the info may be missing. .. I didn't have a closer look. .. Just wanted to mention, that most 3rd party icons have licenses too. > There's the BSD-2 license or the MIT license, what if people get > interested of using it in a commercial project? > BSD-2 and MIT both allow commercial use. > I'm thinking about what's the right way to handle this, given that I don't > have many experiences in developing/releasing/licensing software > It's hard to say. ... It's your choice. ------------------- I can just tell you, what I personally look for, if I use 3rd party libs or tiddlywiki plugins - Are they still active and maintained - If no, I search for a different one - If yes I go on checking - Do they fit to the tiddlywiki.com license ... BSD-3 or compatible. - If they use a license that isn't compatible, ... I look for a different project, with the same functionality. - If there is no such project, search the discussion forum, if other licenses are already requested - Some authors already denied to change the license. So it wouldn't make much sense to request it again - except the denial is > 2 years ago. They may have changed their opinion in the mean time. - Asking in a polite way, is free and doesn't hurt ;) - If there is no such project, try to contact the author, if they want to change the license. - If yes .. OK - If no ... Try to include the 3rd party lib as modular and decoupled as possible. So it can stay with it's license, but doesn't affect the plugin license. TiddlyWiki can use a "per tiddler license", which I think is complete overkill. Except, if you have to argue, with "hard core" GPL advocates. just my 2 cents 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/9c38d84a-d9e8-4278-9960-22eec856f77b%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
