Thanks for the info, it was a good question. I never thought of gpl being that much more restrictive.
Sent from Akira's iPad On Jul 2, 2012, at 10:47 AM, PMario <[email protected]> wrote: > There are different commonly used license types for TW plugins. I did > some comments below every item. The comments are my opinion, which may > be wrong :) > > My opinion is, if you use a more liberal license, the chance to be > adopted is higher. > > TiddlyWiki and many plugins (from Osmosoft) are BSD licensed. > > Several 3rd party plugins, including mine, are a type of > CreativeCommons CC-, wich imo is quite nice due to the configurator. > So you can start with a strict license, and later on make it more > liberal, without compatibility problems. > > If I think my plugins should be able to be included into the core some > time, they need to be at least BSD. > > ==== > most liberal single licenses first: > > MIT [1] license. > The users basically can do what they want. The copyright notice > "shall" be included. imo the important stuff is "THE SOFTWARE IS > PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND" which keeps you safe. > > BSD [2] > Similar to MIT but the copyright notice needs to be included. SOFTWRAE > "AS IS " ... > > CC-BY [3] > This is the least rescricted of the CC-type licenses which have a nice > configurator [4]. > All of them may be appropriate as long as you "Allow modifications of > your work?". If someone sets modifications to "no", I personally think > it is unusable in a TW context. > > The more restrictions you add, the less "attractive" the plugin is. > > GPL type [5][6] > They are all quite long and restrictive, compared to those above. > Since > > ==quote from [6]== > The GPL is the first copyleft license for general use, which means > that derived works can only be distributed under the same license > terms. > ==end quote== > > This forces big companies to use the same terms for there modified > sources. So they need to give the source back to the community. Which > is good for the community. But it forces you to use the same license > if you use only parts of a plugin. > > In my opinion GPL for TW plugins is overkill. > > =========== > > dual or more licenses > like jQuery stuff [7] > Is a very liberal license, since you can choose, which single license > fits to your project and use just that _one_. > > == quote from source == > /*! > * jQuery JavaScript Library v1.7.2 > * http://jquery.com/ > * > * Copyright 2011, John Resig > * Dual licensed under the MIT or GPL Version 2 licenses. > * http://jquery.org/license > * > * Includes Sizzle.js > * http://sizzlejs.com/ > * Copyright 2011, The Dojo Foundation > * Released under the MIT, BSD, and GPL Licenses. > * > * Date: Wed Mar 21 12:46:34 2012 -0700 > */ > === > > have fun! > mario > > [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html > [2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php/ > [3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ > [4] http://creativecommons.org/choose/ > [5] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html > [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#Compatibility_and_multi-licensing > [7] http://jquery.com/ > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TiddlyWikiDev" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev?hl=en.
