Defined term "Output" should be "Covered Output" instead.
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.
Wordsmith of Primary grant for Output under Output Licenses.
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.
Use "covered work", the defined term from AGPLv3 where possible.
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.
Merge permission for modified/unmodified & expand permission scope
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.
Allow use exception in less than full package distribution.
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.
Merge permission for modified Output into single permission
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.
The Web Template Output Additional Permission for AGPLv3
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.