License chooser v0.0.9

Plugins
#1

After a few days, I finished it! Or, at least it’s in working condition that fits my needs and the reason why I started this. :grin:

If you want to give it a spin or provide feedback, please do so! I’m sure a lot of what I did can be enhanced and simplified.

I truly enjoyed the process, especially since this is the first time I did everything on mobile.

The Tinka Plugin Management helped a lot as well as the TiddlyWiki documentation! Thank you very much. (And I still don’t know what I’m doing. :sweat_smile:)

  • Made purely in an Android browser (Via browser to be specific)
  • Hosted by TiddlyHost (dev and prod sites)
  • Workstation: Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 Lite

P.s.
I’m not sure if I placed the shadows in their proper paths. I followed the Core during the process, I simply added my own namespace. :vulcan_salute:t4:

#2

An overview of the officially approved open source licenses can be found at: Licenses – Open Source Initiative

Creative commons has it’s own page and License creator:

For the TiddlyWiki documentation at tiddlywiki.com we use CC-BY v3

I personally do not copy the whole license text into my plugins. I only create the copyright notice and then link to the official source. eg: The TW Cheatsheet plugin

For some of my plugins the full license text would be bigger, than the plugin itself. That’s not officially recommended but it communicates my license intent well enough.

Show Cheatsheet License Screenshot

image
image1276×567 48.4 KB

Just some thoughts.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. So everything above is my personal opinion and may be wrong.

#3

I think your legal notice can not be used that way: License chooser — a License chooser with a global footer & legal notice page because there is not enough “independent work” that it would like to protect.

TiddlyWiki itself is BSD-3-cause licensed, which you can not change.
Your plugin seems to be MIT licensed, which is shown in the plugin license tab. Since there is no other content than your plugin and TiddlyWiki itself IMO the legal notice is redundant.

image
image1585×873 137 KB

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. So everything above is my personal opinion and may be wrong.

#4

I’m a bit confused, it’s about the Plugin’s License, right? Not the available license options in the plugin?

If so, did you mean that plugins should use the same license as the parent? I can change it if needed. Or, dual-licensed since the MIT version was already published.

Or, if you meant the licenses itself like CC licenses, I’m more confused because I have everything covered as advised by CC. Creator of Work and URL, Name of Work and URL, link to the external License legal code of the respective CC licenses. (With the remaining CCLs to follow.)

Sorry! :bowing_man:t4:

Re: Not copying the whole license. Would it not violate the conditions of the license? Most software licenses require that the license text are included (I think only CCLs don’t).

#5

Wait. I think there’s some confusion.

The global footer and the legal notice are for the content, not the “software” (TiddlyWiki in this case). The plugin’s license is only found in Plugin > license, which is MIT currently.

Here’s an actual usage: https://hooniverse.tiddlyhost.com licensed as CC BY 4.0 (I actually created it for this wiki). Another one is https://wiki.youronly.one which is under CC BY-SA 4.0.

:vulcan_salute:t4:

#6

Every plugin can have its own license, that is independent of everything else.

MIT says “shall be included” … So not must

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

BSD has a paragraph 2, which defines “binary form”, which allows to print the copyright and hand out the license with documentation or other materials. So for me the link is fine as documentation or other materials.

1 Like
#7

Those 2 links are OK.

But the wiki in the original post has no content, that’s why the legal notice IMO is not valid.

#8

Ahh! I misunderstood.

In any case, I released v1 under BSD-3 because after asking an IP lawyer, it turns out that it’s the most permissive license that won’t introduce conflicts with Philippine IP laws. (Long story short, BSD-3 and CC-BY-4 are as far as we can go without setting land mines for everyone. :sweat_smile:)

Oh, and about your suggestion to use links instead, it appears that even FSF recommends it through the use of SPDX instead of pasting a wall of license text for new projects. The landscape changed a lot surprisingly. So, I implemented your suggestion all throughout. Just SPDX and links.

Thank you so much! I wouldn’t have dug deeper if not for the points you’ve made! :bowing_man:t4:

In any case, since it’s v1.0.0 now, I created a new thread:

1 Like