There is a delete key button already, but it does not create a $:/config-clone. If absolutely nothing is found, it returns an empty value, because #000000 is a valid value.
But I’m not convinced, that it makes sense. I would rather search for a possibility to “merge” or “register” different palettes that come with a plugin.
As I wrote, I think there was a discussion somewhere already. May be on GH
Edit: See [IDEA] - provide a way to extend palettes · Issue #7736 · Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5 · GitHub
Thank you for the update, Mario! May I suggest some design improvements? I think there are too many borders at the moment inside the scrollable area that has borders itself.
I made the styles very specific in order to not interfere with the table preview.
This would also allow to get rid of the empty rows in the table.
palette-manager-design-hack.json (1.5 KB)
That’s interesting. Looks good! Thank you very much.
I’ll take the hints and implement them right now. I hope I can release a new version with the improvements this weekend.
The last change did take much more time as I thought, because if I’m “tinkering” I need to improve this and that … and this … and that … you got it. 
-m
I did just publish Palette-Manager v0.9.2 – It should improve readability according to @telmiger’s suggestion. But I did add several new element-classes for easier CSS definitions.
Have fun!
I did just publish Palette-Manager v0.10.1
The main improvement is, that there is no browser reload needed anymore, to use the plugin.
So it can be used with every online wiki without saving it first.
Previews can be hidden now
Have fun!
Mario
Hi Mario,
I just noticed the license, CC BY-NC-ND.
In your understanding of this license, does this mean that I cannot use this plug-in in an in-house documentation project at work, because, even though we’re not selling that documentation, it is a commercial entity creating/using it?
Or could I import the plug-in, make my changes, and delete the plug-in without ever saving it in the wiki? Would that be contrary to the license?
Also, in your interpretation of the No-Derivations clause, I assume that you don’t mean that building a wiki using this plug-in is a derived work – else why release a plug-in? – but what would you consider a derived work? Only a new plug-in based substantially on this code?
Do you think an informed user would share your interpretations? How about a lawyer?
I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t address the legal aspect of your question. However, from a purely technical standpoint, now that @pmario’s PaletteManager uses my wikitext-based color picker instead of the previous javascript-based color picker, you CAN use his plugin “without ever saving it in the wiki”.
Also note that the wikitext-based color picker now recognizes all varieties of RGB color values, including hex #rgb, #rrggbb, #rrggbbaa as well as decimal RGB(r,g,b), and RGBA(r,g,b,a)… and if you import TiddlyTools/Settings/Colors/X11 then it will also recognize all standard X11 color names (e.g., “red”, “blue”, “green”, “Dodger Blue”, “Fuchsia”, “Lemon Chiffon”, “Light Sea Green”, “Mint Cream”, “Papaya Whip”, “Tomato”, etc.)
enjoy,
-e
Yes, I did test it before I asked. It’s possible to do. I’m wondering if Mario thinks that’s compatible with the license he’s chosen. Clearly, as the effect is simply to change some palette entries, which could easily be accomplished other ways, it’s not as though a proscription could be enforced. But I was wondering how Mario thought of that in relation to his license.
I didn’t realize that this wasn’t already possible. I haven’t done much (yet) with color schemes in TW, only a few minor tweaks, and I’m sure I just copied the format already there.
Oh, very nice!
Hi Scott,
I did change the license very early in the alpha stage of the project. I did publish it as a bundle here at talk. The problem was that an enthusiastic user “compiled” it into a plugin, which I could not control.
After some communication, that plugin was removed and I did change the license to CC BY-NC-ND, which is a very strict one.
It allows everyone to use it and also re-publish the plugin, but is not allowed to modify or sell the plugin.
Technically, this gave me back the whole control of the plugin and the plugin only. That’s what I wanted to achieve.
Now that the plugin is almost finished, I’ll change the licence back to CC BY-NC-SA - which is for the plugin and not for the palettes, that are created using the plugin.
IMO TW palettes are “content” and licensed using the TW licensing rules which are described at: https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/blob/master/licenses
TiddlyWiki core is BSD (3-cause) and the docs at tiddlywiki.com is CC BY-SA 3.0
2.3 Outbound License
As a condition on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, We agree to license the Contribution only under the terms of the license or licenses which We are using on the Submission Date for the Material or the following additional licenses: BSD 3-clause “New” or “Revised” License (including any right to adopt any future version of a license if permitted).
In addition, We may use the following licenses for Media in the Contribution: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (including any right to adopt any future version of a license if permitted).
see: https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/blob/master/licenses/cla-individual.md#23-outbound-license
Thanks for the info. I’ll publish a new plugin version soon.
Hi Scott,
I’m not a lawyer.
As I understand it, the NC part of the license makes sure, that if you sell a product, that contains the plugin, you have to make sure, that I do get a fair share. Otherwise you may violate the license terms.
That’s basically it.
-m
I don’t think that captures it well. If I use this under an NC license, the work cannot be a primarily for-profit work. That doesn’t mean that you and I could not enter into a separate agreement that allows me to use it for profit, presumably offering you payment in exchange, but that would be a separate deal from this license.
I get so confused by these things. MIT/BSD licenses, now those I understand! It makes sense that CC licenses exist, but I don’t find them straightforward.
For the details have a closer look at the image at WikiPedia - Creative Commons license - Wikipedia, which should make it clearer.
Top to bottom – less to most restrictive
IMO the advantage of Creative Commons is, that it can be used for code and for content alike. It is very modular. An author can start very “strict” and easily loosen the license step by step if needed.
For me compatibility is a main point here. Compatibility with CC itself and Compatibility with other open source licenses.
As an author there is always the possibility to change from a strikt version to a more permissive version. The other way around is limited.
So the easiest way would be to “sponsor” the plugin with the request to change the license to BSD (3 clause), which is the same as TiddlyWiki itself. So it would be a perfect match.
Creating the Palette Manager plugin, especially make it easy to use and look good, was surprisingly much work. I did not count the time in detail but it took a 100+ hours to get it to the state as it is now.
I think the questions are: How much time does the plugin save for a company and all the users? What is that time worth? What would be a “fair share” of the savings and the convenience to get unrestricted use?
We do have TiddlyWiki - Open Collective to collect some funding.
kind regards
Mario
But Creative Commons recommends against this:
We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses listed as free by the Free Software Foundation and listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative.
My personal confusion has to do with what CC means by non-commercial. I’ve read their material many times over the years and again yesterday. I still end up with questions.
And I’m afraid my questions might have been misleading. I don’t have any real potential commercial applications of this plug-in. I was asking in the general sense. I was mostly wondering if you chose this restrictive license with your eyes open. It definitely sounds as though you did.
You missed the second paragraph of the text, which starts with:
Unlike software-specific licenses, CC licenses do not contain specific terms about the distribution of source code, which is often important to ensuring the free reuse and modifiability of software [. . .]
With the latest version of the plugin, it only contains TW wikitext, which could be considered as “content” and not as “source code”. You are right that js-code is source code. But all the other licenses you mentioned are way to complex and do not work well for TW at all. Except those, that are way more permissive as I want them to be eg: MIT, BSD.
That’s why IMO CC xxx works very well for TW plugins if you need some restrictions like NC
Yes I did.
As I wrote:
