Can I Steal Your Work?

[TiddlyTweeter]

Everyone here is very polite.

But, say, I wanted to create a wiki "LegoKit" bundle that uses YOUR plugin / macro mixed in with 10+ others?

I hold off for respect for you. But would you object, really?

Maybe we are inhibiting TW uptake by not combing great plugins and macros into packages for end user needs?

Kits for ...

• Mathematicians
• Literary Writers

... spring to my mind as obvious cases for Lego-isation.

Thoughts

TT

[TiddlyTweeter]

Repeat for those on email ...

[Magnus]

Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal

T. S. Eliot

[TonyM]

TT

So thoughts

Each plugin should specify its licence but typically they are so open you can modify and redistribute. The only fair limitation is to not pass one plugin off as someone else's with changes as this can undermine the authors version control. Bundled plugins have typically being distributed as editions but I see no reason not to bundle plugins perhaps in a json bundle. I think the key is to list and acknowledge what you have used and included if for no other reason than informing the user however I think a key approach is to respect others work.

If publishing a bundle modifications or additions that impact the core or another's plugin macro should be documented so no one seeks support from the author when its your mods breaking something.

When bundling others work unaltered check the source is documented so should an update be required say with a core update then people can source the latest version. The danger of a repackage can be components age.

Regards
Tony

[TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Tony

Good points in your post. Tx.

I was more looking for "OK to use MY work!" from a few authors.

I know that in a "LegoKit" you should acknowledge the component authors.

I was looking I guess, for enthusiasm for the idea of more freely using other people's work.

Its a an issue HERE that we don't have that many people, so I rarely can form a definitive idea.

Not from lack of interest, just lack of numbers.

Best wishes

TT

[Ste Wilson]

Yes. Not sure if I've contributed but yeah!

[TonyM]

TT,

Polling people at the time you want to make use of their work is a hassle to all concerned. My point is if they have a licence in their work and its permissive that is effectively them saying "OK to use my work". Smaller methods and macros without such licence should be considered available in my perspective because one can assume that the work is following tiddlywikis open source standard. Any more complex solutions without a licence should perhaps direct a question to the author and also asking them to document the licence. This is all as long as you acknowledge and do not pass off someone else's work as your own especially if it were for profit.

I remain open to other views.

Regards

Tony

[PMario]

Hi,

With TW we have the possibility to basically add a license-link to every tiddler, using a license-field. I think this is overkill, but it's possible.

I personally _only_ use 3rd party libraries, if the license is open enough. eg: MIT, BSD or CC-BY ...

This allows me to license my own content in a more restricted way, if I want, without violating the underlying licenses.

If the license used, doesn't fit or is not there at all, there is no problem to ask the creator, if s/he wants to add one. Most of them do, if you ask politely. If they don't add a license, use a different library. I'm pretty sure there is one, which fits.

It think, it's important, that you exactly know, which licenses are applied, to the content, that you want to re-publish. 

eg: CC-BY is very open BUT CC-BY-NC-ND is probably the most closed down license you can create.

------------

As Tony pointed out: If you create an edition ... _you_ have to support and maintain it.

If you change "prose content" just make clear, that you changed it.

If you change "code content" it would be better to rename it, if allowed.

If renaming isn't possible, please make clear, that you changed something and _what_ you changed. 

Useful links:

Creative Commons (CC) license creator

CC-BY-SA example        Be aware the example shows a human readable summary!

The legal code is longer.

Open Source Initiative: license overview (MIT, BSD and others)

Examples:

TiddlyWiki code license is BSD-3-clause, which is also available as a shadow tiddler: $:/core/copyright.txt.

Contributing to TiddlyWiki is defined by 2 CLAs (Contributor License Agreement).

If you signed one of them you also agreed to paragraph 2.3 Outbound License, which defines tiddlywiki.com prose and media content to be CC-BY 3.0

A link to my uni-link plugin, which contains all elements as discussed above. ... see "license" and "readme" tab

The markdown-it plugin also contains a 3rd party lib. see: license tab

Conclusion:

If you crate an edition, that uses existing plugins, you should be good to go if you provide a link to ControlsPanel: Plugins tiddler somewhere in your GettingStarted or HelloThere page. It makes all plugin license tabs available to the user.

IMO prose content may be listed in a Credits tiddler, with some links to the original prose content. That should be OK.

have fun!

mario

[TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao PMario & TonyM

One thing I'm thinking about is using Marios "Bundler" Plugin to help organise included items by other authors.

Thomas some time ago made an early attempt at a simple "wrapper" for bundles that presented their contents. Its suggestive. 

I'm thinking something like this could be the easiest way to coordinate this.

I'll write a seperate post asking about the Bundler when I'm a bit clearer and give some example usages.

Best wishes

TT