Reviewing CLA policy

Community Projects Documentation
#21

In terms of CLA, can I assume anything in the forums is fair game?

If someone, say Eric or Saq, posts a really good solution to a common problem, is it OK if I post it to a tiddlywiki.com HowTo ?

These are the practical concerns I have in terms of documentation. Being able to capture these gems in a way that they are not only available to the community, but the community actually looks for them at tiddlywiki.com would help expand usage. How many times have we seen “I googled an answer and couldn’t find anything.” ? Why did they google? Why didn’t they go to TW first? Presumably they had low expectations of what they’d find at TW.

#22

That’s interesting. It’s a long post, so I need more time to read it. But skimming through the text, it seems to cover some important points.

#23

hmmm, That’s not really possible with TW. We re-publish files from other projects (eg codemirror), because we need to wrap them with some code to make them work with TW.

npm install 3rd party libs is not a thing with TiddlyWiki. So we need to be much more specific in that area.

#24

I think this is a separate problem. If we want this to be an option, we need to add a license disclaimer to the forums that says that anything you write can be used under some documentation license. Otherwise the default is presumably that you have to go ask the author/copyright holder before you can reuse it. (I assume most people would say yes, but you’d have to get a hold of them first.)

Unless the forums already have something like this that I’m not aware of? (And it’s probably bad that I’m not aware of it if so…)

#25

I think that as part of the PR, tagging the author and having them comment would be sufficient, as mentioned in Kyle’s post.

That generally “solves” the second hand contribution issue by my reading.

For the forum, you own your content, see ToS.

#26

So you can’t submit material to TW from the forum?

Consider the case where an author has been AWOL for an extensive period of time.

#27

May be we need to add something to the TOS, that “code snippets” or attachments to posts are licensed to TiddlyWiki project automatically, because you posted them here. Except they do include a license tiddler or a link to a license.

StackOverflow does have something similar.

1 Like
#28

Let’s not go there. StackWhatever is a pain in the proverbials. :laughing:

Just a comment
TT

#29

Right. Subsequent change, if any, needs be very clear. The last thing you need is wafting licensing.

IMO your minimalist, compact, utilitarian understanding is likely still legally right.

#30

A post was split to a new topic: Licensing of wiki content vs software