The comma after "modified Website Output" makes it read that (a) and (b)
might relate back to "unmodified." It doesn't make sense to read it that way,
but for ease of reading and ensuring clarity I would remove the comma.
It's "not HTML, Javascript or CSS" (not nor - the initial negative carries
through to all the enumerated elements. Garner, B. The Oxford Dictionary of
American Usage and Style, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 230.) You
should probably switch "Javascript" and "CSS" so all three are always in the
same order.
AGPLv3§2 uses the phrase "output from running a covered work", so we use the
same phrase here. §6(e) already uses the phrase "general public", and of
course "propagate" is a defined term from AGPLv3§0.
This reworked definition of "Covered Output" better normalizes its definition
to fit the standard terminology of AGPLv3, and also removes the 'deployed on
a website'. We actually don't want to create the idea that deploying on the
website is the only way to be eligible for the additional permission. The
key issue is to assure that any items that receive the additional permission
are distributed to the general public, as we want "one last step" of Affero
requirement for the Covered Output, which only once available to the public
can then be combined with other software more liberally.
The idea of being able to apply this to part of a repository was nice, but it
complicates drafting by requiring us to define a term "Package" that is
somehow a subset of the "Program" and "unmodified Program", which are terms
already used in AGPLv3.
Perhaps later someone can find a way to extend this exception to work that
way, but not today.
The word "output" (undefined) is used quite a bit in the body of AGPLv3.
Since an additional permission is read as part of the license itself, I don't
think we should define the term (notwithstanding the apparent case
sensitivity) -- particularly since some defined terms in AGPLv3 are not
capitalized.
Furthermore, this reinforces that we're primarily concerned about Output that
is a derived/derivative/combined work with a covered work under the License.
Clarify what comprises the Output that is under Output Licenses, giving a
better bifurcation of the two types of works that can comprise it. We'll
want flexibility for any content that didn't come for the Program, or has no
reason to otherwise be a covered work.
AGPLv3 defines the term "covered work" already, which becomes the core phrase
of strong copyleft throughout the existing License.
Using this term allows for various simplifications to the permission
statement.
Furthermore, there is no reason that the licensor can (or really, should try
to) grant or copyright permissions for works that aren't covered works.
Pam Chestek originally gave me this idea by making her change to §2¶2,
pointing out that "works" was problematic there.
Finally, the use of the word "file" and "files" was already problematic.
Most of the CSS/Javascript/HTML might not be in "files" of its own -- it may
for example be inside print statements strewn throughout the covered work.
Referring to them as "files" gave the wrong impression to start, something
Eric Schultz had raised earlier in drafting.
I don’t see any reason why unmodified and modified require different clauses,
particularly since the first one also contemplates modifying (“modify any
unmodified Output”). The second paragraph is correct and complete for both
modified and unmodified.
The CC0 theoretically gives rights beyond propagating, conveying and
modifying. These terms would be read as a limitation on the greater rights
under the CC0, which I don't think is what's intended.
Finally, the added content may not be copyrightable, in which case they don’t
get the additional permission under the prior revision.
Moved defined term to front, as is standard for a section called
“Definitions”. This is stylistically consistent with the AGPL
eliminates repetitiveness of second sentence.
Allows for more discrete use (i.e., less than the full distribution) and with
more flexibility in how the additional permission is conveyed. Original
sentence was verbose and definition of the term “Package” was in the wrong
place.
Since Karen felt we needed to repeat the names of the licenses in the
modified version paragraph, I've instead pulled that out as a defined term
and used it throughout.
Add suspenders in addition to the belt to assure that even if the other text
fails to contain the additional permission, the additional permission is at
least contained to only Javascript, HTML and CSS.
Based on feedback from Eric Shultz, I've merged the Javascript/CSS permission
to work the same way as the HTML permission.
The goal is to give permission for downstream to incorporate unmodified
HTML/CSS/Javascript with their own works, but assure that they don't copy
parts of the otherwise AGPLv3'd codebase into that Output.
This redraft attempts to relicense all HTML, Javascript and CSS code, but in
confined ways. I'm not sure if this solution will work, as it's an entirely
different approach to the problem.
This is the first draft of the Web Template Output Additional Permission for
AGPLv3. The goal is to create an additional permission that will allow an
otherwise AGPLv3'd work to output HTML, Javascript and CSS that is under
different licenses.
