PSA: Please license your works

[Abraham Samma]

Hello all,

A lot of TW5's powerful capabilities stem from the fantastic contributions of community members. Code is valuable and therefore we all require written permissions from authors that allows all of us to not just use plugins and core code, but also to remix, adapt and repackage, or even sell, legally.

Most plugins for TW5 have a proper license included that specifies what we can and/or cannot do with the given code. There are many types of licenses for different purposes. Thankfully, you do not need to get a lawyer to write one; BSD, GPL, MIT and Apache templates are available online for free. Just copy and paste it into your plugin/theme.

Unfortunately, a lot of TW5 plugins exist out there that do not have a proper license. Some of them accomplish really useful tasks but would take a lot of time to replicate (plus there would be no way of ascertaining whether it is an original work or not legally speaking).

This leaves a lot of developers and plugin authors helpless because we do not want to step on anyone's toes so to speak. We want to build and give credit where credit is due.

If you're a plugin author, consider finding your plugin and adding a license now. You'd be doing everyone here a solid.

Thanks for listening to this PSA. Cheers.

[Abraham Samma]

PS: A relevant issue that's still open wrt this topic: https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/1890

[PMario]

Hi Abraham,

You are right.
IMO licenses are important and TW plugins have a well defined mechanism, to distribute the license file / links with plugins.

I do have a problem with the "license now"  link you posted. From my point of view, it only shows a very limited short list.

IMO this alphabetical view https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical gives a more complete list of open source licenses. (I know that the number is overwhelming, but I'll try to shorten it later in the text ... )

The https://opensource.org/ project page also describes the background for open source licenses a little bit. So everyone can make up their own opinion.


What tiddlywiki.com already uses:

 - TW core uses the BSD - 3 clause license. Also see: TiddlyWiki5 Individual Contributor License Agreement [1]
 - TW core documentation uses CC-BY Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 ... Also see: [1]


Existing best practice for plugin authors:

 - The plugin.info file eg: [2] contains a list-field that should list minimum 2 tiddlers
    - license
    - readme
 - The license tiddler should contain the license text for the plugin
    - or a link to the license, if the text is much longer than the plugin itself. or
    - for convenience. See: [3]
 - The license tiddler can contain the license text for 3rd-party licenses [4]
    - Also see [1]

For documentation the Creative Commons licenses make more sense, since they have been designed for that purpose.
For code OpenSource licenses make more sense since they have ...

My personal thoughts

I think, that GPL and cousins doesn't fit well for tiddlywiki atm. They are very strong, if compilers are involved. So in the future with web-assembly, they may be part of future development of TW.

If a project I want to use, has a license, that doesn't fit. ... Talk to the author!

If I start my own plugins, I use a very restrictive license at the beginning! eg: CC-BY-NC-SA
Because making them free is easy. ... The other way around is impossible.

More responses can be found here in the group at: TiddlyWiki, licensing and creative works

just my thoughts
have fun!
mario

[1] TiddlyWiki5 Individual Contributor License Agreement
[2] https://github.com/wikilabs/plugins/blob/master/wikilabs/uni-link/plugin.info#L9
[3] https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/blob/master/plugins/tiddlywiki/codemirror/files/codemirror.js#L2
[4] https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/blob/master/plugins/tiddlywiki/d3/files/LICENSE 

[Abraham Samma]

Thanks for the exhaustive input!

[@TiddlyTweeter]

A left field comment. Right, plugins need licences. Protect your work.

AND plugins need some form of  CENTRAL INDEX. Frankly a great plugin is useless if I can't find it. Promote your work. Or, as is, promote getting your work promoted.

J, x

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Looking back at posts by me and others we spend too much time pointing people to great plugins we personally know but which are not common knowledge. They should be. You should NOT have to read this list 24/7 to be able to find them. Rant off.

J.

[BurningTreeC]

Hello Abraham,

I've recently made a plugin for TiddlyWiki (tiddlytouch.tiddlyspot.com) and added an MIT license.

Now I'm thinking about what would be the proper license choice for my plugin.

There's the BSD-2 license or the MIT license, what if people get interested of using it in a commercial project?

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

best wishes,

Simon

[PMario]

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) 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

[BurningTreeC]

Thanks, Mario

This helps a lot!

Am Montag, 22. Januar 2018 13:59:28 UTC+1 schrieb PMario:

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) 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.

I can live well with the MIT license on this. I forgot to include the other licenses in the plugin, they will be there in the next release. popmotion also uses MIT,

the Icons though, they're material icons with Apache 2 license and as the lazy student I am I saw the license and instantly I knew that it's too long for me to read ;)

 

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

Ok I'll stay informed about that, they're all pretty active atm 

 - 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.

yeah, that's too much for me, too. I'll stick with the MIT here, short and big letters

so I have two Apache 2 licenses to include with the others,

I just put them in a tiddler, put links to the licenses on their websites or github and that should be it

I've modified only code under MIT license

just my 2 cents
have fun!
mario

Thank you very much,

Simon 

[@TiddlyTweeter]

One of the licences missing in the discussion is the "I Don't Want A License License" :-).

I noticed that several main contributors of original stuff are UNconcerned with licensing.

TBH, since no one here is known or cared for, so what is the Ultimate Difference?

Is this a hot sweat over nothing? :-)

Just a prod
Josiah

[PMario]

On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 4:08:30 PM UTC+1, BurningTreeC wrote:

 

I can live well with the MIT license on this. I forgot to include the other licenses in the plugin, they will be there in the next release. popmotion also uses MIT,

the Icons though, they're material icons with Apache 2 license and as the lazy student I am I saw the license and instantly I knew that it's too long for me to read ;)

Just put a link to the apache 2 license of the 3rd party project into your project. That's enough. Don't include the whole license text ... It's bloat.

-m

[PMario]

On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 6:41:56 PM UTC+1, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:

...

TBH, since no one here is known or cared for, so what is the Ultimate Difference?

I think, adding an open source license to my code, just shows everyone, who is interested to read, use and modify the code, how it is intended to be used, now and in the future.

Adding an open source license grants everyone, rights in advance. So there is no need to waste time and money, to find out, what is allowed and what not. ...

Is this a hot sweat over nothing? :-)

No. IMO Linux wouldn't be successful, without GPL. GPL allows everyone to commercially use the software, but it also forces everyone to release modified source code with the same license. Only this behaviour keeps the software open and available to everyone. 

A little bit of history: http://www.channelfutures.com/open-source/brief-history-free-and-open-source-software-licensing

Because we have open source licenses, attached to a very large portion of commodities, we consider for granted, there seems to be no problems, without open source licenses. ... Just image a world where the majority of the internet would be based on proprietary licenses only.

have fun!

mario

[PMario]

On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 6:41:56 PM UTC+1, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:

I noticed that several main contributors of original stuff are UNconcerned with licensing.

Yea, ... I like those "I don't care, do what ever you want" licenses. ...

BUT why should I care about code, that was created with a "I don't care" sentiment.

I don't!
-m

[Paul Hutchinson]

In nearly every jurisdiction on the planet copyright is automatic, the moment a work is created it is automatically put under copyright assigned to the creator of the work. This even applies when an infant scribbles their first crayon drawing.

For any copyrighted work if no license is attached the work is by default "All rights reserved" which by law means nobody else can use it for most purposes including putting a copy in their own TiddlyWiki.

To get what I suspect is the desire of most of the "I Don't Want A License License" people they need to add a statement (license) putting the work in the public domain so that anyone can do anything they want with it. https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ or https://creativecommons.org/choose/mark/

Paul

[Jed Carty]

Would a simple plugin that lets you pick from a list of templates and then creates a license tiddler based on your selections be useful? Something like the GitHub license templates would probably work.

[PMario]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 9:54:28 AM UTC+1, Jed Carty wrote:

Would a simple plugin that lets you pick from a list of templates and then creates a license tiddler based on your selections be useful? Something like the GitHub license templates would probably work.

I think it's enough, if TW plugins just link to an URL that contains the license. AND a copyright line, with some additional info. So who ever uses the plugin also carries enough links to find the way home.

eg: https://wikilabs.github.io/editions/uni-link/#%24%3A%2Fplugins%2Fwikilabs%2Funi-link%2Flicense

I'm sure, that thos links are much more stable than self hosted stuff.

IMO even better is a mechanism, that Eric uses for tiddlytools. He links to his own generic licensing tiddler, which then contains an actual version of the license.
see: http://tiddlytools.github.io/#LegalStatements
and: http://tiddlytools.github.io/#StorySaverPlugin ... where the license is just a link.

This doesn't make sense, if permanently change the license. But it's great for a stable setup.

have fun!
mario