2026-07-28 15:37:32 +00:00
# target-revenue
2026-07-28 18:34:10 +02:00
**Status:** Concept and specification only (Stage 0). Not production legal text. Do not attach TRSL to production software yet.
The **Target Revenue Framework (TRF)** is a phased software monetization system: a defined development **Phase** accumulates **Development Credit** and **Remission Credit** against an immutable **Initial Target** until the **Milestone Release** automatically converts to a permissive **Future License** (MIT or Apache-2.0). A **Trust Service** publishes manifests, ledgers, extensions, and attestations as factual evidence — it does not decide conversion.
> Commercial beneficiaries fund the creation and early availability of a software improvement; once the declared target is satisfied, the governed release becomes permissively open source.
## Terminology guardrail
Before conversion, software under TRSL is **source-available** with commercial-use restrictions. It is **not** Open Source under the [OSI Open Source Definition ](https://opensource.org/osd ) (field-of-endeavour non-discrimination). After the Conversion Event, the Milestone Release is available under the declared OSI-style Future License.
| State | Accurate label |
| --- | --- |
| Pre-conversion, noncommercial | Source-available (permitted uses) |
| Pre-conversion, commercial | Commercially licensed / entitlement required |
| Post-conversion | Open source under Future License |
## Reading order
1. [`INTENT.md` ](INTENT.md ) — durable purpose and design principles
2. [`SCOPE.md` ](SCOPE.md ) — what is in scope *now* vs later maturity
2026-07-29 10:22:14 +02:00
3. [`specs/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md` ](specs/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md ) — normative concept draft (ultimate source; governs if it and the extracts below ever diverge)
2026-07-28 18:34:10 +02:00
4. [`specs/ProductRequirementsDocument.md` ](specs/ProductRequirementsDocument.md ) — goals, FRs, roadmap
5. [`specs/TechnicalSpecificationDocument.md` ](specs/TechnicalSpecificationDocument.md ) — schema field tables and boundaries
6. [`specs/OpenQuestions-WorkingDefaults.md` ](specs/OpenQuestions-WorkingDefaults.md ) — provisional Stage 0 defaults
Exploration transcript (non-normative): [`history/260728-InitialExploration.md` ](history/260728-InitialExploration.md )
Program assessment: [`history/260728-SWOT-Assessment.md` ](history/260728-SWOT-Assessment.md )
Extract normative core docs (TREV-WP-0003 T01-T05)
Stabilizes day-to-day terminology out of the exploratory concept draft:
- specs/TargetRevenueFrameworkCore.md — core terms, target formula,
five-verb lifecycle, nine rules, invariants.
- specs/PhaseManifestSpecification.md — field tiers aligned with
schemas/phase_manifest.schema.json.
- specs/TargetLedgerSpecification.md — entry types, hash chain, pure
Outstanding Target fold, aligned with the WP-0002 library.
- specs/MonetizationExtensionSpecification.md — six-field contract,
registered/canonical distinction, Stage 0 Q11 catalog.
Cross-links PRD/TSD/README/CONTRIBUTING to the new extracts, confirms no
placeholder tails remain, and prepares a review checklist for T06 (human
promotion gate, left open pending maintainer review).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-29 02:13:55 +02:00
## Normative documents (day-to-day reference)
Extracted and stabilized from the concept draft under `workplans/TREV-WP-0003-normative-core-extraction.md` (T01–
| Document | Covers |
| --- | --- |
| [`specs/TargetRevenueFrameworkCore.md` ](specs/TargetRevenueFrameworkCore.md ) | Seven core terms, target formula, five-verb lifecycle, nine core rules, foundational invariants |
| [`specs/PhaseManifestSpecification.md` ](specs/PhaseManifestSpecification.md ) | Phase Manifest field tiers and validation rules |
| [`specs/TargetLedgerSpecification.md` ](specs/TargetLedgerSpecification.md ) | Ledger entry types, hash chain, Outstanding Target fold |
| [`specs/MonetizationExtensionSpecification.md` ](specs/MonetizationExtensionSpecification.md ) | Six-field extension contract, registered vs. canonical |
**Forbidden synonyms:** do not treat undifferentiated "revenue captured" as equivalent to Development Credit (see `CONTRIBUTING.md` § Terminology); do not call pre-conversion software "Open Source" (see the guardrail table above).
Archive WP-0001 research to history/; add TRSL V1C1 license candidate
Persists the five prior-art/legal research artifacts and the original
draft skeleton as dated history/ records (260729- prefix, git mv to
preserve history), consistent with this repo's convention that history/
holds dated non-normative artifacts rather than living working documents:
- history/260729-TRSL-PriorArt-Survey.md
- history/260729-TRSL-Terminology-Guardrails.md
- history/260729-TRSL-FutureLicense-PatentPrecedent.md
- history/260729-TRSL-ContributorRights-Research.md
- history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md
- history/260729-TargetRevenueSourceLicense-Draft.md (superseded)
Adds specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md: the first candidate written
as actual operative license text (11 sections: definitions, noncommercial
grant, commercial-use restriction, patent license, automatic conversion,
successive phases, termination/cure, warranty/liability, trademarks,
general provisions) rather than a bracket-annotated skeleton. Carries a
prominent preliminary-status notice near the top and a non-normative
Appendix A tracking the nine items still needing legal resolution before
any candidate can become official Version 1.0.
Updates all cross-references (README, PRD, TSD, SCOPE, workplan) to the
new paths; the workplan's T06 human-accept gate now points at V1C1.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-29 10:33:35 +02:00
## TRSL license candidate
Accept TRSL V1C1 (WP-0001-T06): objective Commercial Use definition
Bernd reviewed the License candidate and accepted it, conditioned on one
refinement to §1's "Commercial Use" definition: replaces the prior
circular definition ("use other than Noncommercial Use") with an
objective, billing-based trigger. Commercial Use now means billing a
customer for pre-conversion Software use, full stop - regardless of
whether the resulting payment is registered with the Trust Service.
Billing without recording the payment in the Target Ledger is Commercial
Use without a valid Commercial Entitlement, a Section 3 violation
addressed under Section 7 and, where applicable, the Enforcement Network.
This substantially resolves the affiliate/contractor/mixed-purpose/
public-sector ambiguity Appendix A item 1 flagged, since classification
no longer depends on who the customer is, only on whether they are
billed. A narrower residual item remains open: whether consumer-
protection law overrides this classification for an individual/sole-
proprietor customer in a given jurisdiction (the same recurring pattern
found across WP-0004's jurisdiction research).
Updates the document's status banner: condition 3 (human acceptance) is
now met; conditions 1 (specialist legal review) and 2 (full Appendix A
resolution) remain open - V1C1 is accepted as adequate briefing material
for counsel, not yet official Version 1.0. Marks WP-0001-T06 done and the
WP-0001 workplan finished (all 6 tasks complete). Updates
OpenQuestions-WorkingDefaults.md Q2, README, and CONTRIBUTING.md to match.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-29 19:30:41 +02:00
[`specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md` ](specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md ) is the first candidate written as actual operative license text (Version 1, Candidate 1) rather than a bracket-annotated skeleton — **accepted by the maintainer 2026-07-29 as adequate briefing material for counsel, but still preliminary, not final, not for production use** (specialist legal review and full Appendix A resolution remain outstanding; see the notice at the top of that file). It is grounded in the prior-art and jurisdiction research archived under `history/260729-TRSL-*.md` , and supersedes the earlier skeleton now archived at `history/260729-TargetRevenueSourceLicense-Draft.md` .
Archive WP-0001 research to history/; add TRSL V1C1 license candidate
Persists the five prior-art/legal research artifacts and the original
draft skeleton as dated history/ records (260729- prefix, git mv to
preserve history), consistent with this repo's convention that history/
holds dated non-normative artifacts rather than living working documents:
- history/260729-TRSL-PriorArt-Survey.md
- history/260729-TRSL-Terminology-Guardrails.md
- history/260729-TRSL-FutureLicense-PatentPrecedent.md
- history/260729-TRSL-ContributorRights-Research.md
- history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md
- history/260729-TargetRevenueSourceLicense-Draft.md (superseded)
Adds specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md: the first candidate written
as actual operative license text (11 sections: definitions, noncommercial
grant, commercial-use restriction, patent license, automatic conversion,
successive phases, termination/cure, warranty/liability, trademarks,
general provisions) rather than a bracket-annotated skeleton. Carries a
prominent preliminary-status notice near the top and a non-normative
Appendix A tracking the nine items still needing legal resolution before
any candidate can become official Version 1.0.
Updates all cross-references (README, PRD, TSD, SCOPE, workplan) to the
new paths; the workplan's T06 human-accept gate now points at V1C1.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-29 10:33:35 +02:00
Draft Commercial Use Agreement V1C1 template
Adds specs/TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.md, the companion
agreement the License repeatedly refers to but never itself set terms
for: commercial entitlement grant, fees and explicit Development Credit
allocation, applicable monetization extensions, metering, audit rights,
term/termination (cross-referenced to License §7.2/§5.2 so a Commercial
Use Agreement termination can never revoke an already-converted Milestone
Release), and a real Section 9 implementing the informed-consent breach-
disclosure election that License §7.4 deferred here: opt-in named
disclosure vs. an anonymized default, a 10-business-day pre-publication
notice with a dispute window, and a data-protection carve-out.
Unlike the License, this Agreement had no dedicated prior-art research
pass (WP-0001 T01-T05 covered license models, terminology, patents,
contributor rights, and jurisdiction constraints, not commercial-agreement
drafting norms) — its preliminary notice says so explicitly, and Appendix A
leaves Section 13 (Indemnification) unwritten rather than guess at a
default carrying real financial exposure.
Corrects three prior references from the placeholder filename
"TRSL-CommercialUseAgreement-Draft.md" to the actual deliverable name, and
cross-references it from README, PRD, TSD, and SCOPE.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-29 12:48:23 +02:00
[`specs/TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.md` ](specs/TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.md ) is the companion Commercial Use Agreement template the License refers to but does not itself set terms for — same preliminary-candidate status, but **less** mature than the License: it had no dedicated prior-art research pass, and its Section 13 (Indemnification) is deliberately left unwritten rather than guessed.
New concept: Enforcement Network (contingency-incentivized violation enforcement)
Introduces specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md: independent, locally-licensed
Enforcement Partners pursue unauthorized Commercial Use (License §3
violations) in their home jurisdiction for a Contingency Share of Recovery,
so enforcement scales the way the framework's monetization already does -
through aligned incentive rather than central litigation capacity. New
terminology (Alleged Violation, Enforcement Action, Recovery, Contingency
Share, Platform Share, Enforcement Registry, Enforcement Partner Agreement)
plus a proposed enforcement-recovery Monetization Extension so Recovery
flows into Development Credit through the existing accounting model rather
than a parallel bucket.
Flags the mechanism's central risk up front rather than assuming it away:
lawyer contingency fees are not legal everywhere. Backed by
workplans/TREV-WP-0005-enforcement-network-research.md (10 tasks); four
executed this session with live web research:
- Germany/EU: RVG §4a permits contingency fees only in three narrow gates,
none fitting this fact pattern well - single-role Enforcement Partner is
very likely not viable; France permits a fixed-fee-plus-uncapped-result-
fee structure instead; EU litigation-funding regulation is proposed
(2022 EP resolution) but not yet adopted.
- US: contingency fees broadly permitted; practical precondition is timely
copyright registration of the Milestone Release to unlock statutory
damages/fee-shifting; Copyright Claims Board flagged as a lower-cost venue.
- UK: Damages-Based Agreements cap fees at 50% for this case category -
the concept's originally-proposed 50% Contingency Share lands exactly on
this real statutory ceiling, the first jurisdiction where the figure is
precisely validated rather than arbitrary.
- Mechanism design: synthesizes the above into a single Enforcement Partner
Agreement template with jurisdiction-conditional role structure
(single-role vs. Litigation Funder/Local Counsel split), with a payment-
flow diagram showing the Development Credit allocation is unaffected by
which structure applies.
Six of ten WP-0005 tasks remain open (Argentina, India, China, Africa,
Asia-Pacific, and the human-gated synthesis). Cross-referenced from README.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-29 15:21:19 +02:00
## Enforcement Network concept
2026-07-29 20:46:49 +02:00
[`specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md` ](specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md ) is a new, separate concept (2026-07-29): independent, locally-licensed Enforcement Partners pursue unauthorized Commercial Use in their home jurisdiction for a share of Recovery, so License §3 enforcement scales without the Licensor litigating everywhere directly. **The central open risk is that lawyer contingency fees are not legal everywhere** — Germany notably restricts them — so the concept requires a jurisdiction-conditional Litigation Funder/Local Counsel structure, not a single global fee mechanism. Backed by `workplans/TREV-WP-0005-enforcement-network-research.md` , now **finished** (all 8 jurisdictions plus mechanism design and the human-gated synthesis, accepted 2026-07-29 — see `history/260729-TREN-*.md` ). Findings: 50% is only exactly valid in the UK; most jurisdictions cap lower (18–
New concept: Enforcement Network (contingency-incentivized violation enforcement)
Introduces specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md: independent, locally-licensed
Enforcement Partners pursue unauthorized Commercial Use (License §3
violations) in their home jurisdiction for a Contingency Share of Recovery,
so enforcement scales the way the framework's monetization already does -
through aligned incentive rather than central litigation capacity. New
terminology (Alleged Violation, Enforcement Action, Recovery, Contingency
Share, Platform Share, Enforcement Registry, Enforcement Partner Agreement)
plus a proposed enforcement-recovery Monetization Extension so Recovery
flows into Development Credit through the existing accounting model rather
than a parallel bucket.
Flags the mechanism's central risk up front rather than assuming it away:
lawyer contingency fees are not legal everywhere. Backed by
workplans/TREV-WP-0005-enforcement-network-research.md (10 tasks); four
executed this session with live web research:
- Germany/EU: RVG §4a permits contingency fees only in three narrow gates,
none fitting this fact pattern well - single-role Enforcement Partner is
very likely not viable; France permits a fixed-fee-plus-uncapped-result-
fee structure instead; EU litigation-funding regulation is proposed
(2022 EP resolution) but not yet adopted.
- US: contingency fees broadly permitted; practical precondition is timely
copyright registration of the Milestone Release to unlock statutory
damages/fee-shifting; Copyright Claims Board flagged as a lower-cost venue.
- UK: Damages-Based Agreements cap fees at 50% for this case category -
the concept's originally-proposed 50% Contingency Share lands exactly on
this real statutory ceiling, the first jurisdiction where the figure is
precisely validated rather than arbitrary.
- Mechanism design: synthesizes the above into a single Enforcement Partner
Agreement template with jurisdiction-conditional role structure
(single-role vs. Litigation Funder/Local Counsel split), with a payment-
flow diagram showing the Development Credit allocation is unaffected by
which structure applies.
Six of ten WP-0005 tasks remain open (Argentina, India, China, Africa,
Asia-Pacific, and the human-gated synthesis). Cross-referenced from README.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-29 15:21:19 +02:00
Fix Contingency Share rule: non-contingent financing, not a disguised bounty
Per maintainer correction: the previous "Standard Bounty Amount" was still
paid only on success, meaning it remained outcome-contingent and would not
actually escape prohibitions worded around outcome-contingency generally
(India's Rule 20: "a fee contingent on the results of litigation") rather
than percentage-proportionality specifically (Germany's quota-litis-style
rules). Renamed to "Standard Financing Amount" and restructured as a fixed
sum paid or made available regardless of the Enforcement Action's outcome
- a grant toward litigation cost, not a contingent fee in any form.
specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md §13 rewritten as a sequential rule
rather than "higher of two comparable numbers" (contingent percentages and
non-contingent financing are not commensurable, and treating them as
interchangeable is exactly what would make the financing look like a
disguised contingent fee):
1. 50% Contingency Share where lawful at that level.
2. Else the jurisdiction's own lower lawful outcome-contingent cap.
3. Else - no lawful outcome-contingent fee exists at all - no
Contingency Share; the Licensor's own non-contingent fee arrangement
with its lawyer governs what's owed win or lose, and the Trust
Service's Standard Financing Amount offsets that cost regardless of
outcome. Fee risk is genuinely higher here, by design: this is what
it means for the risk-shifting a contingent fee normally provides to
be unavailable, not an oversight to paper over.
New §13.0 makes explicit (per maintainer instruction) that nothing in this
rule creates a right for the Trust Service, an Enforcement Partner, or a
Litigation Funder to initiate a case - pressing charges remains
exclusively the Licensor's decision. The rule only makes a ready,
low-friction default (published caps, financing, EPA template) available
once that decision is made.
Added new core term §5.9 Standard Financing Amount; updated §5.5-5.7, §6's
lifecycle step, §9's EPA outline, and the concise definition to match.
Updated WP-0005 T10's synthesis scope and README accordingly.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-29 18:44:48 +02:00
The concept's §13 now defines a **Global Contingency Share Determination Rule** , sequential rather than a "pick the higher number" calculation: (1) 50% where an outcome-contingent fee is lawful at that level; (2) else the jurisdiction's own lower lawful cap; (3) else — where no outcome-contingent fee is lawful at all (Germany, India) — **no Contingency Share** , and instead a non-contingent **Standard Financing Amount** (a fixed sum, paid regardless of outcome, defaulting to $1,000 local-currency-equivalent, recalculated annually, announced by 31 July for the following 1 January) toward the cost of bringing the case. Because it doesn't depend on winning, it isn't a contingent fee at all — a deliberate fix after an earlier draft's "fixed bounty" framing was still outcome-contingent (paid only on success) and so would not have escaped prohibitions like India's Rule 20 ("a fee contingent on the results of litigation"). §13.0 also makes explicit that none of this creates a right to sue — pressing charges remains exclusively the Licensor's decision; the rule only makes a ready, low-friction default available once that decision is made.
Add Global Contingency Share Determination Rule to Enforcement Network concept
Per maintainer request, replaces the flat "working default 50%" Contingency
Share with a systematic per-jurisdiction rule, directly responding to
WP-0005's finding that 50% is unsafe almost everywhere except the UK:
1. 50% applies if lawful in the jurisdiction.
2. Otherwise, the higher of:
(A) the Jurisdiction Percentage Cap - the actual local statutory
maximum, published by the Enforcement Registry as background
information for prospective Enforcement Partners; or
(B) a Standard Bounty Amount - a fixed sum (not a percentage),
defaulting to $1,000 local-currency-equivalent, recalculated
annually to 50% of the trailing-18-month average unpaid-fees
amount where more than 10 settled cases exist (a sample-size floor
to avoid thin-sample noise), announced by 31 July, effective the
following 1 January, always capped at the specific case's own
unpaid fees.
Flags, as the highest-priority open question this rule itself introduces:
whether a fixed, non-percentage bounty actually escapes contingency-fee
prohibitions worded around outcome-contingency generally (India's Rule 20:
"contingent on the results of litigation") rather than percentage-
proportionality specifically (Germany's quota-litis-style rules) - the
Standard Bounty Amount may not solve what it was designed to solve in
exactly the jurisdictions that motivated it, and this is not yet verified.
Added as new specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md §13 (Concise Definition
renumbered §14; no other section numbers changed, so existing cross-
references to §5.5/§6/§8/§9/§11 from workplans and history/ artifacts
remain valid). Updated §5.5, §5.7, and §8's key findings to point to the
new rule. Folded the rule's population and open questions into
WP-0005-T10's synthesis scope.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-29 18:12:45 +02:00
2026-07-28 18:34:10 +02:00
## Repository layout
| Path | Role |
| --- | --- |
| `INTENT.md` | Stable purpose (change rarely) |
| `SCOPE.md` | Living Stage 0 scope |
2026-07-29 10:22:14 +02:00
| `specs/` | Concept source, product/tech specs, working defaults, and normative extracts |
2026-07-28 18:34:10 +02:00
| `workplans/` | Active delivery plans |
| `history/` | Dated non-normative exploration and assessments |
Implement TREV-WP-0002 Stage 0 foundation: schemas, pure fold, golden Phase
Delivers the offline runnable specification foundation for the Trust Layer
(TSD §3-§6), not a hosted Trust Service:
- JSON Schemas for Phase Manifest, Ledger Entry, Extension Contract, and
Conversion Attestation, encoding the Stage 0 working defaults (Q3 future
license enum, Q6 single-currency Phases, Q8 required longstop_at).
- src/target_revenue: pure Outstanding Target fold, SHA-256 hash-chain
verification, Ed25519 signing helpers, extension conformance checks
(including a core-term-redefinition heuristic), and conversion detection
that never requires an attestation document to determine conversion status.
- examples/phase-001: golden Phase package matching the concept doc's
worked example, generated via scripts/generate_golden_phase.py so the
hash chain is computed by the library itself, not hand-typed.
- 32 passing pytest tests covering manifest/ledger/extension conformance,
tamper/reorder detection, and the full lifecycle fold to conversion.
- docs/adr/ADR-0001: proposed (not accepted) Stage 0 stack choice, per the
WP-0002-T01 human-accept gate — implementation proceeded against the
proposal as the workplan note permits, but the task stays open.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-28 18:47:29 +02:00
| `examples/` | Golden Phase packages (`phase-001` , from WP-0002) |
| `schemas/` | Machine-readable JSON Schemas (WP-0002) |
| `src/target_revenue/` | Pure Python validators, hash chain, Outstanding Target fold, conversion detection (WP-0002) |
Complete TREV-WP-0001 research (T01-T05) and draft TRSL skeleton (T06)
Five research artifacts under specs/research/, grounded in primary-source
license text fetched live rather than relying on training-data recall:
- TRSL-PriorArt-Survey.md: BSL 1.1, FSL, PolyForm Noncommercial, Fair
Source, Elastic License 2.0. Confirms TRSL's closed {MIT, Apache-2.0}
Future License enum and no per-Phase custom license text follows FSL's
deliberate fix for BSL's "Additional Use Grant" variability problem.
- TRSL-Terminology-Guardrails.md: confirms via OSI OSD Clause 6 that
pre-conversion TRSL cannot be Open Source; confirms README's existing
guardrail table without change.
- TRSL-FutureLicense-PatentPrecedent.md: MIT has no patent language; Apache
2.0 has an explicit contribution-scoped grant + litigation termination.
Recommends TRSL's pre-conversion phase also carry an express patent grant.
- TRSL-ContributorRights-Research.md: confirms via DCO 1.1 text that a DCO
alone is insufficient for TRSL's dual-future-license promise; recommends
a narrowly-scoped CLA over copyright assignment.
- TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md: deepens German §31/§32 UrhG (primary-
confirmed) and §307 BGB Transparenzgebot (secondary-confirmed, flagged
for counsel verification); corrects scope re: EU UCTD 93/13/EEC being
consumer-only vs. German AGB law covering B2B too. Ranks five terms most
needing objective definitions.
specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-Draft.md (T06) synthesizes all five into a
non-binding skeleton with every clause tagged [CONFIRMED BY RESEARCH],
[LEGAL], [WORKING DEFAULT], or [OPEN]. Per the T06 human-accept gate, the
workplan task stays `todo` — ready for review, not accepted.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-29 09:25:05 +02:00
| `docs/adr/` | Architecture decisions; ADR-0001 (Stage 0 library stack) **accepted** 2026-07-29 |
2026-07-28 18:34:10 +02:00
2026-07-29 10:22:14 +02:00
**`spec/` vs `specs/` (resolved 2026-07-29):** the concept document originally lived under a separate singular `spec/` directory, which `history/260728-SWOT-Assessment.md` flagged as a "perpetual footgun." It has been merged into `specs/` alongside the product/tech specs and normative extracts — there is now one specs directory for the whole repository. The historical split, and the decision to merge it, remain visible in `history/260728-SWOT-Assessment.md` (unedited, as a dated record) rather than rewritten here.
2026-07-28 18:34:10 +02:00
## Active work
| Workplan | Focus |
| --- | --- |
Accept TRSL V1C1 (WP-0001-T06): objective Commercial Use definition
Bernd reviewed the License candidate and accepted it, conditioned on one
refinement to §1's "Commercial Use" definition: replaces the prior
circular definition ("use other than Noncommercial Use") with an
objective, billing-based trigger. Commercial Use now means billing a
customer for pre-conversion Software use, full stop - regardless of
whether the resulting payment is registered with the Trust Service.
Billing without recording the payment in the Target Ledger is Commercial
Use without a valid Commercial Entitlement, a Section 3 violation
addressed under Section 7 and, where applicable, the Enforcement Network.
This substantially resolves the affiliate/contractor/mixed-purpose/
public-sector ambiguity Appendix A item 1 flagged, since classification
no longer depends on who the customer is, only on whether they are
billed. A narrower residual item remains open: whether consumer-
protection law overrides this classification for an individual/sole-
proprietor customer in a given jurisdiction (the same recurring pattern
found across WP-0004's jurisdiction research).
Updates the document's status banner: condition 3 (human acceptance) is
now met; conditions 1 (specialist legal review) and 2 (full Appendix A
resolution) remain open - V1C1 is accepted as adequate briefing material
for counsel, not yet official Version 1.0. Marks WP-0001-T06 done and the
WP-0001 workplan finished (all 6 tasks complete). Updates
OpenQuestions-WorkingDefaults.md Q2, README, and CONTRIBUTING.md to match.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-29 19:30:41 +02:00
| [TREV-WP-0001 ](workplans/TREV-WP-0001-license-prior-art-research.md ) | Prior-art research → TRSL V1C1 license candidate — **finished** , accepted by the maintainer 2026-07-29 |
Extract normative core docs (TREV-WP-0003 T01-T05)
Stabilizes day-to-day terminology out of the exploratory concept draft:
- specs/TargetRevenueFrameworkCore.md — core terms, target formula,
five-verb lifecycle, nine rules, invariants.
- specs/PhaseManifestSpecification.md — field tiers aligned with
schemas/phase_manifest.schema.json.
- specs/TargetLedgerSpecification.md — entry types, hash chain, pure
Outstanding Target fold, aligned with the WP-0002 library.
- specs/MonetizationExtensionSpecification.md — six-field contract,
registered/canonical distinction, Stage 0 Q11 catalog.
Cross-links PRD/TSD/README/CONTRIBUTING to the new extracts, confirms no
placeholder tails remain, and prepares a review checklist for T06 (human
promotion gate, left open pending maintainer review).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-29 02:13:55 +02:00
| [TREV-WP-0002 ](workplans/TREV-WP-0002-trust-service-foundation.md ) | Schemas, pure Outstanding Target fold, golden fixture — **finished** |
Set up practical implementation workplans (WP-0006/0007/0008)
With WP-0001/0002/0003 finished, PRD Phase 4b (hosted Trust Service) is
unblocked per SCOPE.md's own sequencing rule, and the midterm goal shifts
from framework design to practical application: governing and monetizing
repos across the coulomb Forgejo org's product lines (coulomb-loop,
net-kingdom, helix-forge, the railiance-* family).
- TREV-WP-0006: Trust Service reference implementation (PRD Phase 4b).
Eight tasks from PRD to conformance-tested hosted service, explicit that
it builds infrastructure only - no real payments or Phase tracking.
- TREV-WP-0007: Degeneration policy finalization (PRD Phase 5) and the
full canonical monetization profile catalog (remainder of Phase 3) -
pilot Phases can't responsibly launch on the placeholder pilot policy
and one-line profile defaults alone.
- TREV-WP-0008: Governance formalization (PRD Phase 7) and pilot rollout
preparation. Forces a real design decision the framework never had to
answer while single-repo-hypothetical: who is "the Licensor" across four
independent product lines. Produces draft, non-binding Phase Manifests
as worked examples for one repo per product line, and a CLA draft.
All three explicitly preserve SCOPE.md's existing "no production Phases
until legal review" guardrail rather than overriding it under pressure to
monetize real repos: WP-0008-T05 is a dedicated, human-gated go-live
decision, and no other task in any of the three workplans is permitted to
authorize a real Phase, real Commercial Entitlement sale, or real
Development Credit tracking.
Updates SCOPE.md (new Stage 0/Stage 1 maturity table, revised out-of-scope
table distinguishing "infrastructure in scope" from "going live still
gated"), PRD roadmap (Phase 4b/5/7 now active, pointing at the new
workplans), and README's active-work table accordingly.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-29 20:27:29 +02:00
| [TREV-WP-0003 ](workplans/TREV-WP-0003-normative-core-extraction.md ) | Extract stable normative core docs — **finished** , reviewed and accepted 2026-07-29 |
2026-07-29 20:46:49 +02:00
| [TREV-WP-0004 ](workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md ) | Global jurisdictional research backing the License/CUA candidates — **finished** , T10 synthesis accepted 2026-07-29 with alpha/beta working defaults (full legal review deferred until out of beta — see `SCOPE.md` §1) |
| [TREV-WP-0005 ](workplans/TREV-WP-0005-enforcement-network-research.md ) | Enforcement Network legal feasibility research — **finished** , T10 synthesis accepted 2026-07-29 on the same alpha/beta basis (Japan's Article 12 risk remains explicitly unresolved) |
2026-07-29 22:23:41 +02:00
| [TREV-WP-0006 ](workplans/TREV-WP-0006-trust-service-implementation.md ) | Hosted Trust Service reference implementation (PRD Phase 4b) — **finished** , all 9 tasks done (Postgres-backed registries/ledger/metrics/attestation/breach-record, ADR-0002 accepted, onboarding CLI, hosted conformance suite) |
2026-07-29 22:37:08 +02:00
| [TREV-WP-0007 ](workplans/TREV-WP-0007-degeneration-policy-and-canonical-profiles.md ) | Degeneration policy + canonical monetization profile catalog — **finished** , all 4 tasks done. `trsl:policy:linear-longstop-v0` confirmed 2026-07-29 as the v1 norm for the first pilot cohort; `progress-paused-longstop-v1` named as the next iteration, not yet adopted |
Adopt TRSL V1C1 as org-wide preliminary license (WP-0008-T05 sub-decision)
Maintainer decision, 2026-07-29/30: adopts TRSL V1C1 as the preliminary
governing LICENSE across every repo in the coulomb Forgejo org,
confirmed explicitly as "every repo, no exceptions" including
target-revenue itself and internal tooling repos. This is a
license-text adoption, not a Phase declaration - no Initial Target,
Trust Service registration, or Development Credit tracking exists for
any repo as a result. WP-0008-T05 (real Phase go-live) remains todo
and unaccepted.
Applies TRSL to this repo's own LICENSE (self-referential wording,
since target-revenue is the canonical source) and updates
pyproject.toml's license field from MIT-0 to TRSL-0.1.
history/260730-TRSL-OrgWideLicenseRollout.md is the full execution
record: ~90 repos adopted successfully, 2 committed locally only (no
git remote configured: executor-sandbox, executor-worker), and one
explicitly flagged exception (the-custodian - carried a pre-existing
proprietary/confidential license, deliberately not touched pending
separate confirmation, not silently folded into the blanket
instruction).
scripts/rollout/LICENSE.trsl-v1c1 is the deployed template used across
all repos (operative legal text only, points back to this repo's
specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md for the full candidate-status
banner and Appendix A rather than duplicating it ~90 times).
2026-07-30 01:23:52 +02:00
| [TREV-WP-0008 ](workplans/TREV-WP-0008-governance-and-pilot-rollout.md ) | Governance formalization + pilot rollout — active; T01– `info-tech-canon` dry-run onboarding routine exercised end-to-end 2026-07-29. **Org-wide TRSL license adoption executed 2026-07-30** across ~90 `coulomb` -org repos (`history/260730-TRSL-OrgWideLicenseRollout.md` ) — a license-text adoption, not a Phase declaration. T05 (real Phase go-live gate) remains `todo` by design; no Phase exists yet for any repo |
2026-07-30 11:02:45 +02:00
| [TREV-WP-0009 ](workplans/TREV-WP-0009-target-revenue-control-plane.md ) | Target Revenue Control Plane — interactive UI for the `binky` tenant, incl. interactive Development Credit entry creation (`specs/TargetRevenueControlPlaneConcept.md` ) — active, concept only so far; T01 (rights-model human gate) not yet decided |
2026-07-30 12:58:53 +02:00
| [TREV-WP-0010 ](workplans/TREV-WP-0010-development-effort-calculator.md ) | Development Effort Calculator — turns human time/workplan-task volume/repo size/AI token cost into `target_basis` values feeding the framework's existing Initial Target formula (`specs/DevelopmentEffortCalculatorConcept.md` ) — active; **T01 accepted 2026-07-30 (Candidate A, labor-cost-anchored)** ; T02 (implementation) next. Split from TREV-WP-0009 2026-07-30 |
2026-07-28 18:34:10 +02:00
Hub index: [`WORK-RECORDS.md` ](WORK-RECORDS.md ) · brief: [`.custodian-brief.md` ](.custodian-brief.md )
Implement TREV-WP-0002 Stage 0 foundation: schemas, pure fold, golden Phase
Delivers the offline runnable specification foundation for the Trust Layer
(TSD §3-§6), not a hosted Trust Service:
- JSON Schemas for Phase Manifest, Ledger Entry, Extension Contract, and
Conversion Attestation, encoding the Stage 0 working defaults (Q3 future
license enum, Q6 single-currency Phases, Q8 required longstop_at).
- src/target_revenue: pure Outstanding Target fold, SHA-256 hash-chain
verification, Ed25519 signing helpers, extension conformance checks
(including a core-term-redefinition heuristic), and conversion detection
that never requires an attestation document to determine conversion status.
- examples/phase-001: golden Phase package matching the concept doc's
worked example, generated via scripts/generate_golden_phase.py so the
hash chain is computed by the library itself, not hand-typed.
- 32 passing pytest tests covering manifest/ledger/extension conformance,
tamper/reorder detection, and the full lifecycle fold to conversion.
- docs/adr/ADR-0001: proposed (not accepted) Stage 0 stack choice, per the
WP-0002-T01 human-accept gate — implementation proceeded against the
proposal as the workplan note permits, but the task stays open.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-28 18:47:29 +02:00
## Stage 0 library (schemas, pure fold, validators)
WP-0002 delivers an **offline, dependency-light library** — not a hosted
Trust Service (`SCOPE.md` §3). It validates the schemas in `schemas/` ,
computes the pure Outstanding Target fold, verifies the SHA-256 hash chain,
and checks Monetization Extension conformance.
```bash
pip install -e ".[dev]"
python3 -m pytest tests/ # 32 tests, no network required
python3 scripts/generate_golden_phase.py # regenerate examples/phase-001/ledger.json
```
The implementation stack (Python, `jsonschema` , `pytest` , `hatchling` ) is
Extract normative core docs (TREV-WP-0003 T01-T05)
Stabilizes day-to-day terminology out of the exploratory concept draft:
- specs/TargetRevenueFrameworkCore.md — core terms, target formula,
five-verb lifecycle, nine rules, invariants.
- specs/PhaseManifestSpecification.md — field tiers aligned with
schemas/phase_manifest.schema.json.
- specs/TargetLedgerSpecification.md — entry types, hash chain, pure
Outstanding Target fold, aligned with the WP-0002 library.
- specs/MonetizationExtensionSpecification.md — six-field contract,
registered/canonical distinction, Stage 0 Q11 catalog.
Cross-links PRD/TSD/README/CONTRIBUTING to the new extracts, confirms no
placeholder tails remain, and prepares a review checklist for T06 (human
promotion gate, left open pending maintainer review).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-29 02:13:55 +02:00
recorded in [`docs/adr/ADR-0001-stage0-library-stack.md` ](docs/adr/ADR-0001-stage0-library-stack.md ),
**accepted 2026-07-29**.
Implement TREV-WP-0002 Stage 0 foundation: schemas, pure fold, golden Phase
Delivers the offline runnable specification foundation for the Trust Layer
(TSD §3-§6), not a hosted Trust Service:
- JSON Schemas for Phase Manifest, Ledger Entry, Extension Contract, and
Conversion Attestation, encoding the Stage 0 working defaults (Q3 future
license enum, Q6 single-currency Phases, Q8 required longstop_at).
- src/target_revenue: pure Outstanding Target fold, SHA-256 hash-chain
verification, Ed25519 signing helpers, extension conformance checks
(including a core-term-redefinition heuristic), and conversion detection
that never requires an attestation document to determine conversion status.
- examples/phase-001: golden Phase package matching the concept doc's
worked example, generated via scripts/generate_golden_phase.py so the
hash chain is computed by the library itself, not hand-typed.
- 32 passing pytest tests covering manifest/ledger/extension conformance,
tamper/reorder detection, and the full lifecycle fold to conversion.
- docs/adr/ADR-0001: proposed (not accepted) Stage 0 stack choice, per the
WP-0002-T01 human-accept gate — implementation proceeded against the
proposal as the workplan note permits, but the task stays open.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-28 18:47:29 +02:00
2026-07-28 18:34:10 +02:00
## What this repo does not claim yet
- Final legal license text or enforceable TRSL
- A running production Trust Service
- A finalized degeneration formula (research + working defaults only)
- That any real product Phase is governed by TRF today
See [`SCOPE.md` ](SCOPE.md ) and [`CONTRIBUTING.md` ](CONTRIBUTING.md ).
## License
Repository contents are under [MIT No Attribution ](LICENSE ) unless a file states otherwise. That is the license of *this repository* , not the Target Revenue Source License for third-party software.
