Where's the license anyway?

[Mat]

Hm, I just can't find the license - ? Not the agreement to sign, just the statement that TW is GNU-whatever-it-is

To my surprise I don't get anything when searching for "license" on tw.com or on tw's github page. Shouldn't this info be VERY visible???

For info, I want to compare it to the license for this project: CSS ICON.

<:-)

[PMario]

Hi Mat,
main page: https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/blob/master/license
BSD-3clause
-m

[PMario]

On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 10:45:09 PM UTC+1, Mat wrote:

For info, I want to compare it to the license for this project: CSS ICON.

They use CC0 http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/  which is Public Domain.

CC - creative commons works well with "prose text" aka documentation. That's why we also use it in the CLA. https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/blob/master/licenses/cla-individual.md#23-outbound-license
which is CC-BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

You know, every plugin can have its own license. .. even every tiddler could ;)

-m

[Mat]

Mario and @Jeremy

Thank you - BUT to clarify: My question was really only about where I could see the explicit mention of "BSD-3clause". Of course, it is the license content that is legally crucial but in my (limited) experience, the name of the license is useful to state explicitly for e.g license comparisons and overall to give a feeling that "OK, they're using the established standard, no tricky fine print."

So, I'm hoping for "BSD-3clause" to appear in both github and on tiddlywiki.com. I'm including a tid file here as a PR.


<:-)

[PMario]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 12:44:40 PM UTC+1, Mat wrote:

Thank you - BUT to clarify: My question was really only about where I could see the explicit mention of "BSD-3clause". Of course, it is the license content that is legally crucial but in my (limited) experience, the name of the license is useful to state explicitly for e.g license comparisons and overall to give a feeling that "OK, they're using the established standard, no tricky fine print."

You are right. .. It should be more visible.  .... but ...

The name of the license is just a "hint". The content is important. ... If you want: the "fine print"

It also doesn't matter, if you can see the license at a prominent place. It's important, that it's there. see: view-source:http://tiddlywiki.com/ which can only be seen if you open the TW source. .. It's kind of hidden but valid!

But as I wrote, we should improve this.
 

So, I'm hoping for "BSD-3clause" to appear in both github and on tiddlywiki.com. I'm including a tid file here as a PR.

IMO there's no need to include the text several times. Once is enough. It's already there, to produce the html file, it's just not linked in a visible way!

-mario

[PMario]

Hi Mat,

I did create a new issue: https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/2738
which should also cover your request here.

-mario

[Mat]

Thanks for the replies PMario.

>IMO there's no need to include the text several times. Once is enough. It's already there, to produce the html file, it's just not linked in a visible way!

IMO it could be visible under Ctrlpanel > Info > License (i.e new tab). Possibly with a checkbox there to remove the tag that makes the license appear there, in case people don't want it seen.

<:-)