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.
