Licensing of wiki content vs software

[pmario]

@TW_Tones

My concern was if I decide to publish something containing code or data perhaps based on some special business logic or data for which I spent hours designing or harvesting and I wanted to licence or restrict its distribution.

If you want to set up a restrictive license you can use one of the Creative Commons licenses.

They vary from “very permissive” similar to MIT to “most restrictive” like. “You are allowed to re-distribute it, but don’t touch it!”

The Creative Commons project has a license builder with an easy to use interface.

They go from CC-BY to CC-BY-NC-ND see. About CC Licenses - Creative Commons

So there is absolutely no problem to start a project with CC-BY-NC-ND, where others are basically only allowed to read your content.

Later in the process you can at any time change your license to a less restrictive one.
That’s simple

BUT the other way around is hard. If you start a project with CC-BY or MIT or BSD it’s hard to make it more restrictive afterwards. … Because users can use and stay with our open license and develop it on their own.

So going from “open” to “restrictive” is hard. The other way around is simple.

---

@boris mentioned some new licenses in his talk: Open Source Licensing Evolution at Diffusion 2019 – Fission

eg:

Server Side Public License

The story there also shows, that it is hard to go from open to restrictive.

[TW_Tones]

@pmario thanks for your response’s. What I felt was important was if I wish to control part of the tiddlywiki, that there be a way to do so. Do people look for any limitations on a site?, or is there a need for a statement to appear in the face of users to tell them as such?

Since I help out here in the forum a lot I expect I may point someone to a public wiki to explain how someone can achieve that they want, whilst wanting something therein to have more restrictive conditions, or do we avoid this altogether?

[Birthe]

@TW_Tones,
Could you somehow mark tiddlers you want to restrict. I ask because I think that people not used to tiddlywiki have difficulties knowing what is what.
I think that is kind of what you tried to discuss.

[pmario]

@TW_Tones

What I felt was important was if I wish to control part of the tiddlywiki, that there be a way to do so. Do people look for any limitations on a site?, or is there a need for a statement to appear in the face of users to tell them as such?

As I wrote. You are able to manage it on a per tiddler view. So If it is important for you, you can add a custom footer, that is shown for every tiddler.

• You can transclude a site-wide license “subtitle-like” tiddler into the footer
• If a field eg: license exists, it will show the link to an individual license

I think it’s overkill, but it is possible.

You also have the $:/tags/BelowStory, which will let you display this info as “always visible”

---

Do people look for any limitations on a site?

This doesn’t really matter in the case you need to defend your rights. The only thing that is important, is that you did provide this info. … IMO even 1 click away from the landing page is a prominent place.

I personally do look at the footer of a page. Most of the time there are some important links there. eg: About, Prices, Repository … And may be License

[TiddlyTweeter]

@pmario

Copyright is “implicit”. If you create content that has its origin in your brain only, it is automatically considered to be your copyright. There is no need to mark it.

Right.

@pmario

If your content is the result of paid work, in most jurisdictions it’s considered, that the owner is your employer and not you.

Right. And contractual “small print” can make it more worrying. For instance when I did consultancy work for UK overseas aid programmes I discovered, with annoyance, that the contract meant that all photographs you took (including purely personal ones) actually were owned by the British Crown.

@pmario

It seems there is some confusion between the term copyright and the term license. …

Absolutely right. And this confusion has worsened as the net has evolved. (Just FYI I think the TW CLA is actually about as clear as you can get).

@pmario

The TiddlyWiki CLA does not touch your copyright. See: 2.1 (a)

Right. The CLA type license is mainly best thought of as loan of use. Something like that?

My own feeling is we DO need clarify the broader issues. But, that said, I’m not sure how much most code-writers are bothered about the issue. The broader issues would take us a long way away from the immediate issues in TW. And it is maybe not productive to do so.

Just comments
TT

[TiddlyTweeter]

@TW_Tones

In many ways this is not about guaranteeing my copywrite is respected but at least about being able to assert it is my copywrite in the first place.

It is an irony the net has complexified this issue a lot. As I mentioned in several previous posts, declaring copyright on-site (though nothing wrong in it) is not “proof of origination”. IF you seriously need proof of origin (the deciding factor in legal copyright claims) than you can unambiguously assert legally your ownsership by either sending yourself a sealed hard-copy of the text, or use one of the online “copyright registration” services. All the the online systems do is register the date you send a doc and store a copy. Some of the much cheaper “certified email systems”, like Italy’s PEC, effectively do the same affordably.

Just comments
TT

[TiddlyTweeter]

@pmario

So going from “open” to “restrictive” is hard. The other way around is simple.

Right. This falls into the area of “what do I need know before I start so I don’t make a mistake?”

TBH, I think that is an illustration of the fundamental underlying cognitive issue with this whole field. It is like something you stumble into. Like all serious legal issues we don’t spend our lives being worried about the law. But, actually, on-line publishing of either “code” or “content” (and proving the difference of those two terms ) is a potential huge viper’s nest of issues on “rights”.

TT

[TW_Tones]

TT,

Arguably the most likely people to look at a site of mine may be a fellow enthusiast. I do not think I me asking much for “an opt in” standard that if you include content with different permissions it is possible to make it “obvious” to passers by and the community. Mario’s suggestion of in the footer could be a minimal version but it is simple to go a little further.

Please understand although not perfect I do have a reasonable understanding of licences and copywrite etc… For example at the moment we can add a licence to a plugin, what If I had other content, how do I put a licence on it and ensure people are aware of it.

[Birthe]

TW_Tones,
Create a licence tiddler, and link to it from a small mark you set on the tiddlers, you want to licence. The licence tiddler of course has your licence - but could also list the tiddlers.

One of my hobbies is knitting. I am often laughing when reading copyright on knitting patterns on the internet. Written by a 30 some year old woman. You can knit it for yourself - not as a gift and more like this.

Fun part is, that my grandmothers mother knitted some baby clothes that were knit for my father. Later it was used for me ;-).

Who needs a pattern - just count the stitches and knit a replica.

But I also read about a woman winning a court case for a dishcloth pattern. Right! A knitted square - with some pattern stitch from a very old book - also from grandmothers time. - How was that ever provable to be her own original idea?

[TiddlyTweeter]

@TW_Tones

For example at the moment we can add a licence to a plugin …

Right. And this raises a couple of further things of relevance …

1 - Licensing through standard common licenses has the (largely implicit, but actually important) side to it that it is participation in a legally standardised mass movement. In short, it can actually “protect” you in the sense that by so-(co)licensing is an act that has more public recognition than singular (un-backed-up copyright). There is more of a “history” created. And you not just on your own.

@TW_Tones

… what If I had other content, how do I put a licence on it and ensure people are aware of it.

2 - this is a more specific TW thought … IF I had a pure text novel I wanted to put online in TW I would use a plugin for it. Why? Because the basic architecture of plugins inherently supports the idea there is an “original version”. Slightly serendipitous side effect for the purpose I guess. But not without merit where you want to establish there is an original by you.

Just thoughts
TT

[CodaCoder]

@TiddlyTweeter

I would use a plugin for it. Why? Because the basic architecture of plugins inherently supports the idea there is an “original version”. Slightly serendipitous side effect for the purpose I guess. But not without merit where you want to establish there is an original by you.

That’s a great separation of concerns, too (app/content). Bravo, @TiddlyTweeter.

[Mark_S]

I’ve heard about a “poor man’s copyright.” What is it?
The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration.
Copyright.gov

[TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Mark.

I didn’t really want to go down this legal rabbit-warren as it mainly makes lawyers . Also, because it can be seen differently under different jurisdictions … nonetheless in USA …

Mailing a copy of your work to yourself will not serve as a substitute for registering your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. However, the postmark on a “poor man’s copyright” could provide some value to a creator in an infringement action, in that it could be used as evidence that the work was in existence on a certain date, or to demonstrate that the work was independently created before the creation of another work. https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/poor-mans-copyright/

I’m not sure how far to go on with all this. I mean, how important is it, in practice, for TW makers/users?

What I can say is that in Italy, for instance, is that the PEC system is widely used effectively. This is partly because in Italy there is a long tradition of “self-created contracts”. PEC is an extension from an older system of going to the Post Office and having a hand-written “testamento” certified with a tax stamp you mail back to yourself.

https://www.pec.it/en/information.html

Best wishes
TT

[Mark_S]

@TiddlyTweeter

What I can say is that in Italy, for instance, is that the PEC system is widely used effectively. This is partly because in Italy there is a long tradition of “self-created contracts”. PEC is an extension from an older system of going to the Post Office and having a hand-written “testamento” certified with a tax stamp you mail back to yourself.

Have you ever heard of a recent case where this was actually used? There’s like entire magician’s routines based on changing the contents of an envelope. It is, after all, only paper.

I think if I wanted to show that I originated idea X before date Y, I would have the document notarized.

[TiddlyTweeter]

@Mark_S

Have you ever heard of a recent case where this was actually used? There’s like entire magician’s routines based on changing the contents of an envelope. It is, after all, only paper.

Right. They are used all the time. FYI, in Italy testaments concerning, for instance, health or a will, have to be hand written if certified at a Post Office (rather than through a lawyer or a [very, very expensive] notary).

Contracts like a tenancy agreement can be typed and merely need the tax stamp and signing on every page by the parties involved.

The PEC system (i.e. doing same things by email) require additional verification you are you for some cases, though the requirement by that is partly directed by the parties involved.

Just a local comment
TT

[TiddlyTweeter]

@Mark_S

Have you ever heard of a recent case where this was actually used?

If you mean, have I heard of a licensing / copyright / saga in Italy recently, well NO But I haven’t heard much of it anywhere else either as I don’t follow that kind of thing for a living.

TT

[TiddlyTweeter]

@Mark_S

I think if I wanted to show that I originated idea X before date Y, I would have the document notarized.

Nice idea. One of the reasons “self-contracts”, Post Office validated, are common in Italy is that notaries are seriously expensive here.

Local comment 2
TT

[Mark_S]

@TiddlyTweeter

If you mean, have I heard of a licensing / copyright / saga in Italy recently, well NO But I haven’t heard much of it anywhere else either as I don’t follow that kind of thing for a living.

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.

[TiddlyTweeter]

@Mark_S

you’re putting a great deal of faith in it. That’s why I asked.

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.

@Mark_S

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

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

[TiddlyTweeter]

@Birthe

How was that ever provable to be her own original idea?

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