Yes, but you’re putting a great deal of faith in it. That’s why I asked.
You haven’t heard much about such sagas because, realistically, only people who can afford lawyers have actual copyright protection. Which I suppose is why publishing houses still exist, even in a world that doesn’t need printing presses.
Well, it worked well for me in my personal life with several issues. Italian bureaucracy is very complicated. I found, by experience, that declaring in documents issues at play it worked easier. Bureaucrats love documents. 
Right. A real issue. Publishing is likely the essence of the deeper issues. Publishers and their lawyers.
But, I’d like to return to the issue for TW: how important is it that we enter the vast rabbit-hole of this endless saga with it’s Killer Rabbit? —
TT
Grandma couldn’t get out of the grave to object?
IF I made a great statement like…
"Crusoe sewed Crusoe to Crusoe on Crusoe Island as part of the annual Crusoe Crochet Competition."
… would it be honoured after I’m dead? .
TT
No, because Crusoe Island (R) is a registered trademark of, and wholly owned by, the Crusoe Island Tourism Board and their shareholders. A cease and desist order is likely already in the post.
Oh gawd, someone just dragged trademarks into the conversation. Watch out, I think I see “patents” on the horizon… 
In my experience, there is no end because it’s something people worry about, and yet have no actual precedents for.
The main point is that the CLA of TiddlyWiki has no bearing on the content you put into a TiddlyWiki file.
If you want to assert ownership of your material, then put in some links to your own copyright or licensing. Or, as a practical matter, don’t publish at all. Put a copyright notice may not matter in a technical sense, but in a rabbit-eats-rabbit world it doesn’t hurt to stake your claim and make your intentions clear. Because bunnies are cheaper than lawyers. Though not always nicer.
IMO a simple text is: “The content of this site is licensed by <your license link here> if not stated otherwise.”
The last 4 words give you the possibility to have a per tiddler license that is different to the rest of the site
There is a discussion on GitHub to create “content-plugins” for a different reason, but the implementation can be used in this way or an other.
Mark S.
I thought that post good … my take on your points …
1 … we worry, but the actual outcome is inevitably vague (lawyers love it)
2 … TW CLA is clinically agnostic on content ; that is v. good
3 … asserting ownership is a bit of a cleft-stick. It can become a bit of a rabbit-war, but better to have a go than not to try to preserve your stuff.
Basta
Right. I definitely think the very unique way “plugins” work in TW has relevance to the kind of issues @TW_Tones raised in the OP. I doubt they were designed with the kind of issues that came up in this thread in mind. But I do think plugins may have some useful relevance to them?
I suppose the interest in law drives these conversation way beyond my original questions. From the 9 replies today I extract these meaningful answers;
@pmario could you find a link for this please?, I could not.
In a subsequent reply I will try and clarify once again. What I was seeking.
No matter how you assert copyright, copyleft, licences, patents and trade marks or any other legal right you must have a way to bring it to peoples attention. My question was how do we do so for tiddlywiki?
No matter if you have the power to demonstrate your ownership, originality, legal claim etc… and enforce it, it is almost irrelevant, if no one knows you wish to retain some ownership or rights. For example you may be familiar with the ™ © symbols, which can be “deployed liberally”.
The thing is we need a way to let this be known, the desire for something not be taken without request, or even simply attribution. For many cases this will be respected by most people, as being demonstrated many times over. If however someone did “take” your content, you then may be able to demonstrate you did assert some rights, or yours was the first so published ie original. Whether or not one can enforce all your rights at law if stated clearly, you can ask it be taken down, or even the ISP or hosting provider may ask an individual to take it down. You could post socially stating information was taken “Illegally” as long as you can point to the fact they could reasonably see your claim, and copied your work.
The thing is the law tries to be black and white, but society is grey.
But if you want any hope of encouraging people to respect your rights, be able to ask third parties to enforce your rights or ultimately revert to the “black letter of the law” you;
Must be able to assert ownership in black and white!
I have not looked at detail at the CLA licencing discussion etc… and as suggested;
What I wanted, and have not got, if it is within the CLA, or just on Tiddlywiki.com is as follows;
A formal community standard on how to document and assert rights to content within a tiddlywiki.
Including a statement supporting peoples rights to do so and encouraging them to be respected.
All the other issues are “out of scope” of my request to the community and discussions of “the ins and outs of a ducks bum” of enforcement and law intriguing, but irrelevant to my request.
My answer would be something like this;
Within tiddlywiki individual licences or permissions may be asserted in the “licence” tab of any plugin, or if not a plugin, in a licence field on individual tiddlers, further if any tiddler(s) use a namespace such as $:/org/licence/… pr org/licence/… as long as it contains the work “licence” or “licenced” then it should be expected that such is indicating there is a licence being asserted that is different to TiddlyWikis “licence”.
We ask all to respect such assertions.
Further I would think it of relevance, to be referred to in the otherwise permissive CLA or other formal statements relating to licencing and permissions etc…
Please see at tiddlywiki.com the License and $:/core/copyright.txt
In layman’s terms, the license says that you can take TiddlyWiki and do anything you want with it without any license fee payment or other legal obligation to the creators of TiddlyWiki or anyone else.
My emphasise is anyone else. and depends on what we consider TiddlyWiki to be".
Whilst it goes on to say;
For the avoidance of doubt, any information that you choose to store within your own copy of TiddlyWiki remains yours; using TiddlyWiki to publish content doesn’t change whatever rights you may have to that content.
But it provides no guidance on how to assert in a specific wiki;
whatever rights you may have to that content.
Perhaps to match $:/core/copyright.txt also found in the empty.html it is a standard that one create a copyright.txt tiddler.
This JSON displays the © symbol which links to copyright.txt if it exists.
copyright.json (759 Bytes)
Just to add that I agree with @TW_Tones that it would be worth adding to TW a standard mechanism for authors to declare the copyright of the material in the wiki. It may be as simple as adding an edit box for $:/copyright to the control panel.
Related, I’d also like to introduce mechanism to pull together the acknowledgements for the third party components that are integrated into the core.
I would add that having a tiddler not in the system namespace such as “copyright” would allow it to be found from the search. Boosting discoverability.
Alternatively a suggestion I made previously is to add to the general search the searching of a field called system-caption in system tiddlers.
This idea would need to be a minor change in a future release and the ability to toggle off if the system-caption (or alternative fieldname) is searched from the general search, may be helpful in some publishing scenarios.
Arguably this is an improvement and should be backward compatible.
All,
My TW is the one that @TW_Tones referred to in his original post that he is reviewing. I have found this discussion quite interesting and thought provoking. My TW has material that is a mix of items that are of my own creation (found through my own research) and items that others have found through their research. This discussion has me thinking that I’d like to be able to differentiate the two somehow. I’m just getting into this discussion as I’ve been distracted with the birth of our first grandchild so I’m going to have to give this some more thought…
I now have two grandchildren, 3,5 and love ever minute of it, “congrats”
Good point one or more copyright statements may need to be provided. Certainly the current establish method is to include extras in a plugin with its licence statement. See my somewhat related post TiddlyWiki more permissive on File? where perhaps copywrite notices need to be accepted on https/http but not file://
I do know that the following has nothing to do with licence or copyright. But I remember how telling it was to me, how many bits and pieces from other people I really had in my TW using twMat’s http://thankyou.tiddlyspot.com/.