|
bkuhn
|
21aff912c8b8
|
6 years ago
|
|
Parity with two phrases already used in AGPLv3's main body.
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.
|
|
bkuhn
|
da5fe94dadb4
|
6 years ago
|
|
Ditch the idea of "Package"; makes it all simpler.
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.
|
|
bkuhn
|
654069148b04
|
6 years ago
|
|
Remove superfluous "You have the following additional permission:"
We know this document is an additional permission, it says it right at the top, *and* in the section heading of this document's §2. Why say it again?
|
|
bkuhn
|
d9313fd5e1a2
|
6 years ago
|
|
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.
|
|
bkuhn
|
84d90abc70eb
|
6 years ago
|
|
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.
|
|
bkuhn
|
9432504c6265
|
6 years ago
|
|
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.
|
|
Pamela Chestek
|
42e25f25ed67
|
6 years ago
|
|
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.
|
|
Pamela Chestek
|
f4273f205359
|
6 years ago
|
|
|
|
Pamela Chestek
|
d18d7f6f32d5
|
6 years ago
|
|
Rewrite of "Output" defined term.
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.
|
|
Pamela Chestek
|
47c169060bfa
|
6 years ago
|
|
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.
|