Query -- The Fully Self-Revealing Tiddler?
173 views
Skip to first unread message
@TiddlyTweeter
Jun 19, 2017, 3:59:39 AM6/19/17
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
I have an issue. The best way to explain it is through a Use Case.
Imagine you made a library of svg icons using other peoples images. You want users to be able to browse and drag-n-drop ONLY icons they want (i.e. a plugin containing them all is inappropriate).
There is a COPYRIGHT issue in that the originating image was not made by me, only adapted and converted to svg by me. What is needed is a link to the license under which the icon can be used.
The simplest solution would be to have a "Copyright" field of the Tiddler that contains the svg image that has a link to the license. HOW do you ensure the Copyright ALWAYS DISPLAYS on the specific Tiddler? I mean, NOT, just on the originating TW, where you can set it be so, but also on the TW it is copied to?
Is there any method with a SINGLE Tiddler transferred to another TW can be set such that fields, other than Title, Subtitle & text, can be automatically displayed?
Please ask if the question is unclear.
This thread also has some bearing on the Copyright issues over in the discussion about PMario's "Bundler." https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/_Uqbg08Pjow/xcQ_eKMFDQAJ
Best wishes
Josiah
Imagine you made a library of svg icons using other peoples images. You want users to be able to browse and drag-n-drop ONLY icons they want (i.e. a plugin containing them all is inappropriate).
There is a COPYRIGHT issue in that the originating image was not made by me, only adapted and converted to svg by me. What is needed is a link to the license under which the icon can be used.
The simplest solution would be to have a "Copyright" field of the Tiddler that contains the svg image that has a link to the license. HOW do you ensure the Copyright ALWAYS DISPLAYS on the specific Tiddler? I mean, NOT, just on the originating TW, where you can set it be so, but also on the TW it is copied to?
Is there any method with a SINGLE Tiddler transferred to another TW can be set such that fields, other than Title, Subtitle & text, can be automatically displayed?
Please ask if the question is unclear.
This thread also has some bearing on the Copyright issues over in the discussion about PMario's "Bundler." https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/_Uqbg08Pjow/xcQ_eKMFDQAJ
Best wishes
Josiah
PMario
Jun 19, 2017, 7:04:15 AM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
Hi,
First things first: Copyright [1] and Software Licensing [2] are different things.
Quote Wikipedia: Copyright
Simplified speaking: "Whenever you create something new, you automatically have the copyright"
Quote Wikipedia: Software Licensing
In other words: "A license describes the copyright owners intentions about use and redistribution of the work."
So using those 2 definitions, there basically can't be a copyright issue. ... There only can be a Licensing issue. ... So you should forget about copyright. It's always there and mentioned in the license anyway. see: TW-License [3] or in a different form [4] see: bundlers-license [5]
So we only need to focus on licensing.
more to come. ...
have fun!
mario
First things first: Copyright [1] and Software Licensing [2] are different things.
Quote Wikipedia: Copyright
Copyright is a legal right created by the law of a country that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights for its use and distribution.
Simplified speaking: "Whenever you create something new, you automatically have the copyright"
Quote Wikipedia: Software Licensing
A software license is a legal instrument (usually by way of contract law, with or without printed material) governing the use or redistribution of software
In other words: "A license describes the copyright owners intentions about use and redistribution of the work."
So using those 2 definitions, there basically can't be a copyright issue. ... There only can be a Licensing issue. ... So you should forget about copyright. It's always there and mentioned in the license anyway. see: TW-License [3] or in a different form [4] see: bundlers-license [5]
So we only need to focus on licensing.
more to come. ...
have fun!
mario
@TiddlyTweeter
Jun 19, 2017, 7:20:35 AM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
PMario
Your exactitude is perfect for this kind of discussion :-)
First: my practical issue about whether you can force fields to show when a Tiddler is transferred did not get answer, yet :-). Any ideas?
Second: Licensing seems, then, to me to replace my idea of "copyright". But the same applies, doesn't it? That a License Field that was always forced to show (if it had any content) could solve many issues around licensing/copyright between TW's?
My point is you SHOULD SAY SOMETHING :-).
Best wishes
Josiah
Your exactitude is perfect for this kind of discussion :-)
First: my practical issue about whether you can force fields to show when a Tiddler is transferred did not get answer, yet :-). Any ideas?
Second: Licensing seems, then, to me to replace my idea of "copyright". But the same applies, doesn't it? That a License Field that was always forced to show (if it had any content) could solve many issues around licensing/copyright between TW's?
My point is you SHOULD SAY SOMETHING :-).
Best wishes
Josiah
PMario
Jun 19, 2017, 7:24:59 AM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
... :) please wait a bit. I'm not finished yet
-m
-m
Jed Carty
Jun 19, 2017, 7:37:35 AM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
If I make all the stuff on my wiki available as CC-0 than forcing tiddler to show that when it is displayed is just going to be annoying I think.
Being able to show it is not a bad idea, but I don't like the idea of forcing it to display.
@TiddlyTweeter
Jun 19, 2017, 7:49:39 AM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Jed
I was thinking of a strictly delimited case. The transport of a Tiddler that has an explicit "license/copyright" need. I was thinking only that a footer could display a link to its conditions of use. Otherwise you have to add additional informational tiddlers etc. It seems to ME that ONE field for that is the lightest solution. But as is it won't display when transferred. IF you can assure me that a HIDDEN field is enough then I can let this issue go. But I would rather you were known.
Josiah
I was thinking of a strictly delimited case. The transport of a Tiddler that has an explicit "license/copyright" need. I was thinking only that a footer could display a link to its conditions of use. Otherwise you have to add additional informational tiddlers etc. It seems to ME that ONE field for that is the lightest solution. But as is it won't display when transferred. IF you can assure me that a HIDDEN field is enough then I can let this issue go. But I would rather you were known.
Josiah
Jed Carty
Jun 19, 2017, 8:09:43 AM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
I think that this is a social problem, not a technological one. It doesn't matter what you have, if people want to ignore it than they will. I think that if you have something in whatever the bundling interface is that lists licenses that would be about as much as would be effective. If someone is going to ignore that than they would ignore a more persistent notification also.
@TiddlyTweeter
Jun 19, 2017, 8:10:13 AM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
Further Jed
You are also missing one point that by declaring a copyright that gives ALL rights you are also declaring a copyright that has to be replicated, even if ALL rights are given. If that is what you want then "This is NOT copyright" is the way to go :-)
You really do not to have to say that unless you want people to have to replicate it :-).
Josiah
You are also missing one point that by declaring a copyright that gives ALL rights you are also declaring a copyright that has to be replicated, even if ALL rights are given. If that is what you want then "This is NOT copyright" is the way to go :-)
"The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law"
You really do not to have to say that unless you want people to have to replicate it :-).
Josiah
@TiddlyTweeter
Jun 19, 2017, 8:19:41 AM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Jed
I agree its a social issue.
And in ordinary Tiddler life to date its NOT been much of an issue.
But it is a concern because people do have rights, and some of them may someday want to assert them, so its important to address that IMO.
Josiah
I agree its a social issue.
And in ordinary Tiddler life to date its NOT been much of an issue.
But it is a concern because people do have rights, and some of them may someday want to assert them, so its important to address that IMO.
Josiah
PMario
Jun 19, 2017, 8:20:52 AM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
TL;DR -- Valid for your image usecase only
I would handle it that way:
Create a tiddler: Image-Licenses with the content:
Everything that is tagged: $:/tags/Image is license: x, y, z ...
<<list-links "[tag[$:/tags/Image]]">>
and link the tiddler somewhere in the "Thanks to: " section of the wiki.
-------------- Reasoning below: It's a management problem ----------------
I would handle it that way:
Create a tiddler: Image-Licenses with the content:
Everything that is tagged: $:/tags/Image is license: x, y, z ...
<<list-links "[tag[$:/tags/Image]]">>
and link the tiddler somewhere in the "Thanks to: " section of the wiki.
-------------- Reasoning below: It's a management problem ----------------
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 9:59:39 AM UTC+2, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
I have an issue. The best way to explain it is through a Use Case.
Imagine you made a library of svg icons using other peoples images. You want users to be able to browse and drag-n-drop ONLY icons they want (i.e. a plugin containing them all is inappropriate).
For
SVGs there is an established mechanism to include meta-data directly
into the svg code. ... SVGs use a text based XML (Extensible Markup Language) format.
If you open it with a text editor or TW-editor, it looks very similar to HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) and it is "human" and "machine" readable. see: http://tiddlywiki.com/#%24%3A%2Fcore%2Fimages%2Fdelete-button and open it.
With TW we use a manually stripped down version of SVG. There is just enough "xml" left, that the browser or an other program can handle it.
eg: (stripped down again for readability)
If you save the delete button as an delete.svg file, open it with eg: inkscape, Edit the global Document: Settings: License to eg: CC-BY and save, you'll get something similar to this:
As you can see, now the (manually stripped down) <metadata> section is still "heavier" then the real content. ... That's why we completely stripped it in TW. ... BUT it contains a <cc:License> section, that is sufficient for your drag and drop usecase.
Similar settings are available for every other image editor. eg: exif for jpg, png, gif, and so on. So .... If the global program settings are done right, the license fields should be there already.
So if you want to deal with it for images, you definitely should have a look at the editor-software. ... That's one reason, why I wrote: "It's a management problem"
have fun!
mario
If you open it with a text editor or TW-editor, it looks very similar to HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) and it is "human" and "machine" readable. see: http://tiddlywiki.com/#%24%3A%2Fcore%2Fimages%2Fdelete-button and open it.
With TW we use a manually stripped down version of SVG. There is just enough "xml" left, that the browser or an other program can handle it.
eg: (stripped down again for readability)
<svg class="tc-image-delete-button tc-image-button" viewBox="0 0 128 128" width="22pt" height="22pt">
<g fill-rule="evenodd" transform="translate(12.000000, 0.000000)">
<rect x="0" y="11" width="105" height="16" rx="8"></rect>
...
</g>
</svg>If you save the delete button as an delete.svg file, open it with eg: inkscape, Edit the global Document: Settings: License to eg: CC-BY and save, you'll get something similar to this:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<svg xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 128 128" height="22pt" width="22pt" version="1.1" xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" class="tc-image-delete-button tc-image-button">
<metadata>
<rdf:RDF>
<cc:Work rdf:about="">
<cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"/>
</cc:Work>
</rdf:RDF>
</metadata>
<g transform="translate(12)" fill-rule="evenodd">
<rect rx="8" height="16" width="105" y="11" x="0"/>
...
</g>
</svg>
As you can see, now the (manually stripped down) <metadata> section is still "heavier" then the real content. ... That's why we completely stripped it in TW. ... BUT it contains a <cc:License> section, that is sufficient for your drag and drop usecase.
Similar settings are available for every other image editor. eg: exif for jpg, png, gif, and so on. So .... If the global program settings are done right, the license fields should be there already.
So if you want to deal with it for images, you definitely should have a look at the editor-software. ... That's one reason, why I wrote: "It's a management problem"
have fun!
mario
PMario
Jun 19, 2017, 8:27:15 AM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 2:10:13 PM UTC+2, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
You are also missing one point that by declaring a copyright that gives ALL rights you are also declaring a copyright that has to be replicated, even if ALL rights are given. If that is what you want then "This is NOT copyright" is the way to go :-)
As I wrote. It not a copyright issue. It's all about licensing. Throw the copyright term away!!!!
"The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law"
That's a problem. There are some countries, where this type of license is not possible.
-m
@TiddlyTweeter
Jun 19, 2017, 8:42:20 AM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
In THIS case Jed creates NO real license on usage at all. Rather a redundant license of negation.
Unlike you I think this IS a Copyright issue, because he DECLARES it is not copyrighted, but under a specific fruitless license :-). Its that declaration that has entailments for users having to replicate a license that his work is not copyrighted.
Josiah
Unlike you I think this IS a Copyright issue, because he DECLARES it is not copyrighted, but under a specific fruitless license :-). Its that declaration that has entailments for users having to replicate a license that his work is not copyrighted.
Josiah
@TiddlyTweeter
Jun 19, 2017, 10:20:49 AM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
He's in a Dark Room. He picks up The Bundler and enters The SVG SaltMines. The Clock is stopped.
Mark S.
Jun 19, 2017, 11:30:43 AM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
Doesn't SVG allow comments inside? So the SVG itself could carry the copyright.
SVG works with CSS, right? So you could have a SVG watermark that has to be deliberately turned off by CSS in the TW.
Mark
SVG works with CSS, right? So you could have a SVG watermark that has to be deliberately turned off by CSS in the TW.
Mark
Thomas Elmiger
Jun 19, 2017, 12:47:21 PM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
Hi all
Interessting points of view, let me add my own as an author of texts, SVGs and TW “software”.
As a creator I earn the copyright for my stuff and I can decide to publish a work under a certain license to state my intentions about it’s use. E.g. I could use a CC license:
“Creative Commons licenses provide an easy way to manage the copyright terms that attach automatically to all creative material under copyright.” [1]
Suppose I publish an SVG graphic in a TW in stripped svg format. Where would I include licensing information?
Case: I want to use this graphic in one of my TW plugins, anyone may use it for free as part of my free plugin.
User J likes my graphic and includes it in his SVG collegtion of graphics.
User P loads my SVG from J’s collection and wants to print and sell t-shirts with my design.
How can we let user P know that he must ask me for a commercial license?
I find the idea appealing to include a field "license" and maybe a field "copyright" with my name/website. The information in these fields should be visible in the SVG tiddler without any additional macro or copyright tiddlers in view mode – but invisible when it is used/transcluded in my plugin interface.
This way it would be possible to drag my work from wiki to wiki without accidentally loosing the copyright and license information.
And yes: a CC-0 license is a license too and it would be useful to keep this information included for folks like Josiah and me who care about stuff like this, so we know we can do anything without asking.
Just my five cents. All the best!
Thomas
[1] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#What_happens_if_the_author_decides_to_revoke_the_CC_license_to_material_I_am_using.3F
Interessting points of view, let me add my own as an author of texts, SVGs and TW “software”.
As a creator I earn the copyright for my stuff and I can decide to publish a work under a certain license to state my intentions about it’s use. E.g. I could use a CC license:
“Creative Commons licenses provide an easy way to manage the copyright terms that attach automatically to all creative material under copyright.” [1]
Suppose I publish an SVG graphic in a TW in stripped svg format. Where would I include licensing information?
Case: I want to use this graphic in one of my TW plugins, anyone may use it for free as part of my free plugin.
User J likes my graphic and includes it in his SVG collegtion of graphics.
User P loads my SVG from J’s collection and wants to print and sell t-shirts with my design.
How can we let user P know that he must ask me for a commercial license?
I find the idea appealing to include a field "license" and maybe a field "copyright" with my name/website. The information in these fields should be visible in the SVG tiddler without any additional macro or copyright tiddlers in view mode – but invisible when it is used/transcluded in my plugin interface.
This way it would be possible to drag my work from wiki to wiki without accidentally loosing the copyright and license information.
And yes: a CC-0 license is a license too and it would be useful to keep this information included for folks like Josiah and me who care about stuff like this, so we know we can do anything without asking.
Just my five cents. All the best!
Thomas
[1] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#What_happens_if_the_author_decides_to_revoke_the_CC_license_to_material_I_am_using.3F
@TiddlyTweeter
Jun 19, 2017, 2:44:56 PM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
I think Thomas makes the killer point ...
I find the idea appealing to include a field "license" and maybe a field "copyright" with my name/website. The information in these fields should be visible in the SVG tiddler without any additional macro or copyright tiddlers in view mode – but invisible when it is used/transcluded in my plugin interface.
Burying copyright inside the SVG seems to me coping strategy, not fairness. I think it would be far better to have an EXPLICIT, visible, link. Yes, SVG supports a copyright string, but I think in TW we can have a more universal approach too that can apply globally on license/copyright issues.
The one part of my original question that hasn't got answer is IF its possible, at the moment, to move a tiddler such that in a new TW with a "copyright" or "license" field could be forced to show. That would be important.
Regarding it being a "management nightmare" to go this way I can't see the issue. To me its seems minimalist & workable & pretty fair.
Best wishes
Josiah
The one part of my original question that hasn't got answer is IF its possible, at the moment, to move a tiddler such that in a new TW with a "copyright" or "license" field could be forced to show. That would be important.
Regarding it being a "management nightmare" to go this way I can't see the issue. To me its seems minimalist & workable & pretty fair.
Best wishes
Josiah
Lost Admin
Jun 19, 2017, 3:42:21 PM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 2:44:56 PM UTC-4, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
I think Thomas makes the killer point ...I find the idea appealing to include a field "license" and maybe a field "copyright" with my name/website. The information in these fields should be visible in the SVG tiddler without any additional macro or copyright tiddlers in view mode – but invisible when it is used/transcluded in my plugin interface.
Burying copyright inside the SVG seems to me coping strategy, not fairness. I think it would be far better to have an EXPLICIT, visible, link. Yes, SVG supports a copyright string, but I think in TW we can have a more universal approach too that can apply globally on license/copyright issues.
I think of putting the copyright inside the SVG as the right solution. I may take the SVG out of tiddlywiki to use elsewhere and then the copyright/license details are lost unless I remember to copy them too (which I'm not likely to do if I'm in a rush).
The one part of my original question that hasn't got answer is IF its possible, at the moment, to move a tiddler such that in a new TW with a "copyright" or "license" field could be forced to show. That would be important.
Add {{!!license}} to the body of the tiddler? Or maybe {{svgtiddler!!license}}, assuming double transclusion works.
Regarding it being a "management nightmare" to go this way I can't see the issue. To me its seems minimalist & workable & pretty fair.
Playing devils advoate here: It seams to me it would get very annoying if I'm transcluding a bunch of different SVG tiddlers into my own tiddler and they all have separate copyright and license notices. The copyrights and licenses may end up taking up more space than the images.
Best wishes
Josiah
@TiddlyTweeter
Jun 19, 2017, 4:45:32 PM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
Lost Admin wrote:
Playing devils advoate here: It seams to me it would get very annoying if I'm transcluding a bunch of different SVG tiddlers into my own tiddler and they all have separate copyright and license notices. The copyrights and licenses may end up taking up more space than the images.
That is a very interesting issue. Or rather issueS.
Regarding many SVG of different sources having different licences: It may be so. That is not the documenter's fault, its honouring origins.
Regarding SPACE.I agree if you have long license statements its an issue. But mostly it would only be an HTML address, hardly a major headache.
Josiah
Thomas Elmiger
Jun 19, 2017, 5:47:42 PM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
Have a look at how Wikipedia deals with this. In an article you see just an image:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apricot_Portable
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apricot_Portable
If you click on an image you see author (, publisher) and license immediately without having to open the image (jpg, png, wathever) in a special software or in source code view:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apricot_Portable#/media/File%3AApricot_portable.png
I think this is how license and copyright owner should be presented.
@TiddlyTweeter
Jun 19, 2017, 6:03:15 PM6/19/17
to TiddlyWiki
I agree. Let the address do the work. Its much better that way because its not messed up by local concerns about space & wording.
Part of my issue, I think, has been discussion that makes it like WE need to solve the issue. We do NOT need to solve the issue. Its already solved 9.6 times out of ten. Its much more about linkage than anything, I think.
J.
Part of my issue, I think, has been discussion that makes it like WE need to solve the issue. We do NOT need to solve the issue. Its already solved 9.6 times out of ten. Its much more about linkage than anything, I think.
J.
PMario
Jun 20, 2017, 7:47:36 AM6/20/17
to TiddlyWiki
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 8:44:56 PM UTC+2, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
The one part of my original question that hasn't got answer is IF its possible, at the moment, to move a tiddler such that in a new TW with a "copyright" or "license" field could be forced to show. That would be important.
Hmmm,
As an author you can't and imo shouldn't try to force anything on your users. IMO that's the wrong way to bind your users. That's why DRM has failed. IMO the only way to bind your users is superior content.
If we have an open license or free license, the "free" is meant like freedom to use and not as in "free beer". ... Forcing something on someone has nothing to do with freedom for me.
If I'm forced to do something in an open source environment, my reaction is like this: "I don't use the stuff!" It's as simple as that. ... because "I'm free, to do that!"
just some thoughts
-m
As an author you can't and imo shouldn't try to force anything on your users. IMO that's the wrong way to bind your users. That's why DRM has failed. IMO the only way to bind your users is superior content.
If we have an open license or free license, the "free" is meant like freedom to use and not as in "free beer". ... Forcing something on someone has nothing to do with freedom for me.
If I'm forced to do something in an open source environment, my reaction is like this: "I don't use the stuff!" It's as simple as that. ... because "I'm free, to do that!"
just some thoughts
-m
PMario
Jun 20, 2017, 7:58:24 AM6/20/17
to TiddlyWiki
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 9:42:21 PM UTC+2, Lost Admin wrote:
Playing devils advoate here: It seams to me it would get very annoying if I'm transcluding a bunch of different SVG tiddlers into my own tiddler and they all have separate copyright and license notices. The copyrights and licenses may end up taking up more space than the images.
That's the point. Working with licenses imo is cumbersome. But giving credit (which imo is much more important than handling licenses in the right way) should be as easy as possible.
-mario
PMario
Jun 20, 2017, 8:08:04 AM6/20/17
to TiddlyWiki
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:03:15 AM UTC+2, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
Part of my issue, I think, has been discussion that makes it like WE need to solve the issue. We do NOT need to solve the issue. Its already solved 9.6 times out of ten. Its much more about linkage than anything, I think.
Yea. Giving credit to an open source author in a sensible way, imo is much more important, than handling licenses in the right way. This includes mentioning the author of an image directly by the image.
For me a prominent "one click link" to a "Thanks to page" is much more worth than a prominent link to the plugins used. I'm fine if the licensing is 3 clicks away from the main page.
just some thoughts
-mario
For me a prominent "one click link" to a "Thanks to page" is much more worth than a prominent link to the plugins used. I'm fine if the licensing is 3 clicks away from the main page.
just some thoughts
-mario
Mark S.
Jun 20, 2017, 10:06:15 AM6/20/17
to TiddlyWiki
Maybe ... the _canonical_uri image tiddlers could carry the copyright/licensing credits and display them when displayed singly. But not display them when used as transclusions in other tiddlers.
Mark
Mark
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages