I am sorry, but the wiki has a uniform Public Domain license. If you don't want your specification to be public domain, put it on your own website (or maybe the archive) and link from here.
Also, to my limited knowledge, copyright protects expression, not ideas. In particular you cannot restrict anyone writing about the language as long as they don't use parts of your text. On the other hand it would certainly be normal politeness to include proper acknowledgements. --Ørjan 17:31, 11 Jul 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was about to mention about that as well.. The articles here are public domain, but naturally a language itself doesn't turn into public domain if it's mentioned here (or if it did, the law'd be rather strange). This is what I think, but don't know for sure. --Keymaker 22:18, 11 Jul 2006 (UTC)
- Did Thematrixeatsyou ever say he didn't want this specification or the language itself to be public domain? --Ihope127 18:11, 12 Jul 2006 (UTC)
- OK, due to all this feedback, I'm changing the licenses. Enjoy. --Thematrixeatsyou 02:52, 13 Jul 2006 (UTC)
"The interpreter is very close to public domain, but... "TheSquare Interpreter" can be redistributed, and even modified, but it must be open-source and PLEASE contact me when you distibute it so I know what's where." According to the license in the header of the interpreter, it isn't even close to public domain, and even farther from Open Source. This is misleading at best. --GregorR 16:47, 27 Jul 2006 (UTC)
- More useful explanation: To be open source, you can not require that users tell you when they use your software. If it was public domain, you couldn't impose any restriction at all. If you want to make sure there are no closed-source derivatives, I'd recommend using the GPL. So, either simply explain it as such in the wiki page, or change the license on the software.
- Sorry, I've fixed that license, I did change it in a hurry. Now the file is in sync with the wiki. --Thematrixeatsyou 06:26, 1 Aug 2006 (UTC)